[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski --- When we moved to git, gcc-cvs has become what this bug has requested. In that it sends the exact patch which was committed to the list now. An example is https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2021-September/352936.html
[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Last reconfirmed|2005-09-24 17:07:47 |2008-03-30 20:03:26 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634
[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-11-26 14:43 --- Subject: Re: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > The feature request is only worth a bug report if you actually intend to > persue > the request. Just keeping bug reports open for tracking issues where nothing > happens is a Bad Thing. No, it's a Good Thing; issues where something happens quickly have people actively remembering them and so less need to track them in a tracker, issues with less activity over time have more use for being tracked. We might decide in some cases that a page in projects/ or on the wiki is a better way to track some sorts of feature ideas than the bug database, but simply closing without moving elsewhere would be wrong. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634
[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
--- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-26 14:37 --- The feature request is only worth a bug report if you actually intend to persue the request. Just keeping bug reports open for tracking issues where nothing happens is a Bad Thing. I suggest you bring up your request on gcc@ or on overseers. If no-one but you wants to persue this actively, I'd say there is no reason to keep this report open. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634
[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-11-26 14:28 --- Subject: Re: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list The feature request is just as relevant as it was. Part of the point of a bug database is to track issues over time for as long as they are relevant rather than having them lapse and be forgotten through the passage of time; old but still-relevant issues are not pollution. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634
[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
--- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-26 13:47 --- So almost 7 years later we still have this bug report and nothing has happened -- and the reporter isn't exactly persuing the issue either. Can we just please close this one to avoid bug database polution? -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634
[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-01-01 22:24 --- Subject: Re: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Do we need this any more after svn as svn automatically does patch sets and > doing a diff for a patch set ? It's of just as much value for all the audit purposes with SVN as with CVS. The *only* point in this bug's comments which no longer applies is that from comments #2 and #6 (since SVN gives atomic changesets), all other uses still apply. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634
[Bug other/1634] Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-28 06:27 --- Do we need this any more after svn as svn automatically does patch sets and doing a diff for a patch set ? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1634
