On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Maybe we can remove DATESTAMP and updating it now that
>>> gcc_update understands to extract the SVN revision number?
>> Anyway, removing DATESTAMP would change the issue to new snapshots with no
>> changes rather than with just DATESTAMP changes.
> My regress
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do we really need a new snapshot when only DATESTAMP is updated? I
>> >> think it
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> - Show quoted text -
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do we really need a new snapshot when only DATESTAMP is up
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> >> Do we really need a new snapshot when only DATESTAMP is updated? I
> >> think it is a waste
> >> of resources.
>
> It is.
>
> > When 4.4 has br
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Do we really need a new snapshot when only DATESTAMP is updated? I
>> think it is a waste
>> of resources.
It is.
> When 4.4 has branched I plan to close 4.2 branch.
Maybe we can remove DATESTAMP an
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Do we really need a new snapshot when only DATESTAMP is updated? I
> think it is a waste
> of resources.
When 4.4 has branched I plan to close 4.2 branch.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
