> > We can now identify the exact version of gcc t have simply by the
> > revision number and branch name. So maintaining all this stuff in a
> > DATESTAMP, etc, is severe overkill when you could simply use the result
> > of "svnversion .' and commit that to a file, or do it client side).
>
> I th
On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 23:59 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Daniel Berlin:
>
> >> Is it okay to make an unreviewed test commit?
>
> > Uh, commit all you want.
>
> Permissions don't seem to be set correctly:
>
> SendingChangeLog
> Sendinglibgcc2.h
> Transmitting file data ..svn:
* Daniel Berlin:
>> Is it okay to make an unreviewed test commit?
> Uh, commit all you want.
Permissions don't seem to be set correctly:
SendingChangeLog
Sendinglibgcc2.h
Transmitting file data ..svn: Commit failed (details follow):
svn: Can't create directory '/svn/gcc/db/trans
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > CVS write access users should give the subversion setup a try this week.
>
> Is there a branch that represents the tip of the old-gcc repository? It
> appears that premerge-fsf-branch is intented to be
On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 23:20 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Daniel Berlin:
>
> > CVS write access users should give the subversion setup a try this week.
> >
> > Directions on how to do common operations are at
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SvnHelp
> >
> > I have placed the repo in exactly the plac
On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 22:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > CVS write access users should give the subversion setup a try this week.
>
> Is there a branch that represents the tip of the old-gcc repository?
No. old-gcc got merged into the current gc
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CVS write access users should give the subversion setup a try this week.
Is there a branch that represents the tip of the old-gcc repository? It
appears that premerge-fsf-branch is intented to be this, but it is missing
many files from old-gcc reposito
> Presumably, no longer tagging any snapshots, instead just reporting the
> revision number and branch name in the snapshot announcements?
Uh, tags are cheap, it can tag them if it likes. Who cares.
>
> > The other contrib scripts have been updated by Ben Elliston, and were
> > posted to gcc
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Note that this is a pretty straightforward conversion, but the whole
> script is really overkill for the following reason:
>
> We can now identify the exact version of gcc t have simply by the
> revision number and branch name. So maintaining all this
