On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > - Show quoted text - > On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > >> >> Do we really need a new snapshot when only DATESTAMP is updated? I >> >> think it is a waste >> >> of resources. >> >> It is. >> >> > When 4.4 has branched I plan to close 4.2 branch. >> >> Maybe we can remove DATESTAMP and updating it now that >> gcc_update understands to extract the SVN revision number? > > I think DATESTAMP serves a useful purpose in providing immediate > identification of what trunk or release branch version given sources are > based on, when those sources may be another branch last merged from trunk > or a release branch a while back or imported into another version control > system, so that a revision number does not give this information. > > Anyway, removing DATESTAMP would change the issue to new snapshots with no > changes rather than with just DATESTAMP changes.
Hm, is it maybe possible to adjust a REVISION in the svn repository by some pre-/post-commit hook so it automatically contains the revision of the last checkin? Then we'd bump such thing only if there are changes on the branch. Of course the snapshot generation would need to trigger only if there were checkins since the last snapshot. Richard.
