| Message ID | 874o6qjj45.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > Would something like this be useful? > > --- develop.html.~1.114.~ 2011-03-26 10:44:52.000000000 +0100 > +++ develop.html 2011-03-26 10:58:49.311173994 +0100 > @@ -434,13 +434,13 @@ > | GCC 4.5.1 release (2010-07-31) > GCC 4.6 Stage 3 (starts 2010-11-03) \ > | v > - | GCC 4.5.2 release (2010-12-16) > + | r167945 GCC 4.5.2 release (2010-12-16) > | > +-- GCC 4.6 branch created ------+ > - | \ > + | r170934 \ > v v > GCC 4.7 Stage 1 (starts 2011-03-14) GCC 4.6.0 release (2011-03-25) > - | > + | r171512 > | > v > > The idea is to include the copy-source revision on the trunk or the > respective branch, so that you can use the timeline to check whether a > particular change came before or after a release. Of course, this is > just an approximation, but it think it might still be useful. Uh, well - the information is readily available from SVN so I don't think this is very useful. Richard.
* Richard Guenther: >> The idea is to include the copy-source revision on the trunk or the >> respective branch, so that you can use the timeline to check whether a >> particular change came before or after a release. Of course, this is >> just an approximation, but it think it might still be useful. > > Uh, well - the information is readily available from SVN so I don't > think this is very useful. How? Do you look at the dates instead of revision numbers?
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 07:15, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: >> Would something like this be useful? >> >> --- develop.html.~1.114.~ 2011-03-26 10:44:52.000000000 +0100 >> +++ develop.html 2011-03-26 10:58:49.311173994 +0100 >> @@ -434,13 +434,13 @@ >> | GCC 4.5.1 release (2010-07-31) >> GCC 4.6 Stage 3 (starts 2010-11-03) \ >> | v >> - | GCC 4.5.2 release (2010-12-16) >> + | r167945 GCC 4.5.2 release (2010-12-16) >> | >> +-- GCC 4.6 branch created ------+ >> - | \ >> + | r170934 \ >> v v >> GCC 4.7 Stage 1 (starts 2011-03-14) GCC 4.6.0 release (2011-03-25) >> - | >> + | r171512 >> | >> v >> >> The idea is to include the copy-source revision on the trunk or the >> respective branch, so that you can use the timeline to check whether a >> particular change came before or after a release. Of course, this is >> just an approximation, but it think it might still be useful. > > Uh, well - the information is readily available from SVN so I don't > think this is very useful. I find it very useful actually. To figure out the rev at which to cut my 4.6 branch, I had to checkout gcc-4_6-branch and check the log. This would've made it slightly easier. Besides, I don't see any harm in adding this info. Diego.
Hi, On Sat, 26 Mar 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > > GCC 4.7 Stage 1 (starts 2011-03-14) GCC 4.6.0 release (2011-03-25) > > - | > > + | r171512 > > | > > v > > > > The idea is to include the copy-source revision on the trunk or the > > respective branch, so that you can use the timeline to check whether a > > particular change came before or after a release. Of course, this is > > just an approximation, but it think it might still be useful. > > Uh, well - the information is readily available from SVN Hmm, you have a very unusual definition of "readily available" :) > so I don't think this is very useful. It certainly doesn't do any harm so if some people find it useful (and at least Florian does) there's no reason to not include it. Ciao, Michael.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> > GCC 4.7 Stage 1 (starts 2011-03-14) GCC 4.6.0 release (2011-03-25) >> > - | >> > + | r171512 >> > | >> > v >> > >> > The idea is to include the copy-source revision on the trunk or the >> > respective branch, so that you can use the timeline to check whether a >> > particular change came before or after a release. Of course, this is >> > just an approximation, but it think it might still be useful. >> >> Uh, well - the information is readily available from SVN > > Hmm, you have a very unusual definition of "readily available" :) Well - of course svn sucks, but > svn log --stop-on-copy svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/<branch-name> | tail works for me. >> so I don't think this is very useful. > > It certainly doesn't do any harm so if some people find it useful (and at > least Florian does) there's no reason to not include it. We also don't include the branch name - it is "readily available by construction from elsewhere documented scheme". I think it clutters the ascii art - where do you stop with adding other "useful" information? Richard. > > Ciao, > Michael.
Hi, On Sat, 26 Mar 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> Uh, well - the information is readily available from SVN > > > > Hmm, you have a very unusual definition of "readily available" :) > > Well - of course svn sucks, but > > > svn log --stop-on-copy svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/<branch-name> | tail > > works for me. And takes 57 seconds for 4_1_branch (it seems gcc.gnu.org is fast today). > We also don't include the branch name - it is "readily available by > construction from elsewhere documented scheme". branch names == convention, svn revisions == unambiguous specification. > I think it clutters the ascii art - where do you stop with adding other > "useful" information? At the point where more people find it inconvenient than useful. Ciao, Michael.
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011, Florian Weimer wrote: > GCC 4.6 Stage 3 (starts 2010-11-03) \ > | v > - | GCC 4.5.2 release (2010-12-16) > + | r167945 GCC 4.5.2 release (2010-12-16) > > The idea is to include the copy-source revision on the trunk or the > respective branch, so that you can use the timeline to check whether a > particular change came before or after a release. If this goes in, I suggest to say "SVN r167945" to make its frame of reference more clear. On Sat, 26 Mar 2011, Diego Novillo wrote: > I find it very useful actually. To figure out the rev at which to cut > my 4.6 branch, I had to checkout gcc-4_6-branch and check the log. > This would've made it slightly easier. Besides, I don't see any harm > in adding this info. Richi did not like it, you seem to be in favor, Michael neutral to in favor. I tried finding an alternate place to put this information, such as releases.html or svn.html, but none really work better. Shall we give Florian's patch a try? Gerald
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 01:04, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote: > Richi did not like it, you seem to be in favor, Michael neutral to in > favor. > > I tried finding an alternate place to put this information, such as > releases.html or svn.html, but none really work better. Shall we give > Florian's patch a try? Yes, please. Diego.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 01:04, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote: > >> Richi did not like it, you seem to be in favor, Michael neutral to in >> favor. >> >> I tried finding an alternate place to put this information, such as >> releases.html or svn.html, but none really work better. Shall we give >> Florian's patch a try? > > Yes, please. The location of the revision doesn't specify what it exactly belongs to. It's confusing. Richard. > > Diego. >
--- develop.html.~1.114.~ 2011-03-26 10:44:52.000000000 +0100 +++ develop.html 2011-03-26 10:58:49.311173994 +0100 @@ -434,13 +434,13 @@ | GCC 4.5.1 release (2010-07-31) GCC 4.6 Stage 3 (starts 2010-11-03) \ | v - | GCC 4.5.2 release (2010-12-16) + | r167945 GCC 4.5.2 release (2010-12-16) | +-- GCC 4.6 branch created ------+ - | \ + | r170934 \ v v GCC 4.7 Stage 1 (starts 2011-03-14) GCC 4.6.0 release (2011-03-25) - | + | r171512 | v