On Wed, 28 May 2008, Joe Buck wrote: > > Ah. Then the DATESTAMP change shouldn't happen if there is no > > modification to the branch since the last DATESTAMP.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:48:31PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > 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. I does seem like a lot of work for little gain. Suggestion withdrawn. I did a search (summary contains all of the strings in "4.1 regression", summary does not contain the string "4.2"), and got 103 bugs. Assuming that they are all marked correctly, these would all close.
