Hi all,
Here is the update patch.
*) Remove IGNORE_BRANCHES
*) Add BRANCH_REGEXP
*) Remove '-n' from echo command line, use the original DATESTAMP format
*) Update PATH as Gerald recommend
*) Fix a typo in patch of hooks/post-commit
*) Write svn commit error messages to svn client as Gerald
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea whether
this is technically possible of course.
Yes, the
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No
On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 22:00, Paul Koning paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
No. Subversion specifically documents the fact that a pre-commit hook can't
change the transaction; it can only inspect it.
paul
Yes, here is a pilot post commit hook for bumping DATESTAMP:
post-commit |
Dongsheng Song dongsheng.s...@gmail.com writes:
+ echo -n ${CURR_DATE} gcc/DATESTAMP
What's the point of -n?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com
GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E
And now for something completely different.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
Index: hooks/update_datestamp
===
--- hooks/update_datestamp (revision 0)
+++ hooks/update_datestamp (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+
+REPOS=$1
+REV=$2
+
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, NightStrike wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Dongsheng Song
dongsheng.s...@gmail.com wrote:
It's
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, NightStrike wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 18:31, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea whether this
is technically possible of course.
Richard.
Yes, the post-commit hook can do
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea whether
this is technically possible of course.
Yes, the post-commit hook can do this task.
If we really want to do that, I can
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 23:32, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea whether
this is technically possible of course.
Yes, the
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Dongsheng Song
dongsheng.s...@gmail.com wrote:
It's very simple (only for trunk, although it maybe more useful for
branches):
Or simply put Last-Changed-Date into DATESTAMP, not the
current date.
Richard.
Index: update_version_svn
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Dongsheng Song
dongsheng.s...@gmail.com wrote:
It's very simple (only for trunk, although it maybe more useful for
branches):
Or simply put Last-Changed-Date into DATESTAMP,
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, NightStrike wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Dongsheng Song
dongsheng.s...@gmail.com wrote:
It's very simple (only for trunk, although it maybe more useful for
branches):
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Dongsheng Song
dongsheng.s...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 03:44, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
wrote:
It would be nice if the scripts could check whether only DATESTAMP
changes were done since the last snapshot ...
Just for
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Dongsheng Song
dongsheng.s...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 03:44, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
wrote:
It would be nice if the scripts could check
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Dongsheng Song
dongsheng.s...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 03:44, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
wrote:
It would be nice if the scripts could check whether only DATESTAMP
changes
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
Just for curiousness, why we bump the DATESTAMP when the last commit
is DATESTAMP changes on the branch ?
As far as I am concerned, that's a bug (or a missing feature). The
script in question is maintainer-scripts/update_version_svn in the GCC
source
It's very simple (only for trunk, although it maybe more useful for branches):
Index: update_version_svn
===
--- update_version_svn (revision 169428)
+++ update_version_svn (working copy)
@@ -42,6 +42,12 @@
Oh, update_version_svn can be apply to
trunk/gcc-4.5-branch/gcc-4.4-branch/gcc-4.3-branch, not only trunk.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:45, Dongsheng Song dongsheng.s...@gmail.com wrote:
It's very simple (only for trunk, although it maybe more useful for branches):
Index: update_version_svn
On Sun, 23 May 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
I am wondering, should I stop the weekly snapshot for the GCC 4.3
branch and just create them ad hoc when there is demand?
It would be nice if the scripts could check whether only DATESTAMP
changes were done since the last snapshot ...
How can this
On Sat, 22 May 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
The GCC 4.3.5 release has been created and uploaded, it will
be announced once the mirrors had a chance to pick it up.
[...]
I will continue to send status reports for the 4.3 branch when
applicable.
I am wondering, should I stop the weekly
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
The GCC 4.3.5 release has been created and uploaded, it will
be announced once the mirrors had a chance to pick it up.
[...]
I will continue to send status reports for the
Status
==
The GCC 4.3.5 release has been created and uploaded, it will
be announced once the mirrors had a chance to pick it up.
The 4.3 branch is open again for regression and documentation fixes.
Previous Report
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00253.html
I will
25 matches
Mail list logo
