Patchwork [wwwdocs] Add Subversion revisions to the timeline

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Florian Weimer
Date March 26, 2011, 10:01 a.m.
Message ID <874o6qjj45.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/88460/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Florian Weimer - March 26, 2011, 10:01 a.m.
Would something like this be useful?

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.
Richard Guenther - March 26, 2011, 11:15 a.m.
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.
Florian Weimer - March 26, 2011, 12:34 p.m.
* 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?
Diego Novillo - March 26, 2011, 2:56 p.m.
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.
Michael Matz - March 26, 2011, 5:29 p.m.
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.
Richard Guenther - March 26, 2011, 5:34 p.m.
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.
Michael Matz - March 26, 2011, 6:31 p.m.
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.
Gerald Pfeifer - April 3, 2011, 11:04 p.m.
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
Diego Novillo - April 4, 2011, 6:05 a.m.
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.
Richard Guenther - April 4, 2011, 12:20 p.m.
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.
>

Patch

--- 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