On Wed, 28 May 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Ah. Then the DATESTAMP change shouldn't happen if there is no
> > modification to the branch since the last DATESTAMP.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:48:31PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The snapshots know nothing of whether there were any changes on the b
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> > >> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> >> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > A third alternative is to issue a sna
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval
>> > is chosen) iff there's been a checki
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval
> > is chosen) iff there's been a checkin on the branch.
>
> I thought that's how it worked already.
No, a new 4
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3)
and trunk. Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four
of these.
I agree that turning off the 4.1 snapshots makes sense. If you're
sufficiently motivated to do the automatic
snapshot-o
On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval
> is chosen) iff there's been a checkin on the branch.
I thought that's how it worked already.
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My recommendation in my very unoffical role as "carer of the snapshots"
> > is to stop doing those weekly snapshots for the 4.1 branch, and I will
> > be happy to roll a new snapshot upon request in case someone (like
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3)
> and trunk. Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four
> of these.
>
> A while ago we agreed, for a number of reasons, not to do any
