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: > > >> > 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 4.1 snapshot was created May 26, even though the last checkin > > > was April 8. > > > > That's because the tree is still daily updated with the DATESTAMP changes. > > Ah. Then the DATESTAMP change shouldn't happen if there is no > modification to the branch since the last DATESTAMP.
The snapshots know nothing of whether there were any changes on the branch at all. I'd rather just close the branch (disable the update of DATESTAMP, disable snapshots, close bugs only open as 4.1 regressions after updating the milestones to indicate where they were fixed, switch other bugs marked as 4.1 regressions to more recent milestones and remove "4.1/" from their summaries) than add extra complexity for the sake of a dead branch. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
