Date:	Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:07:15 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Test binaries of gcc-3.0.1 20010802 (prerelease)
In-Reply-To:	<3B6E8F21.9731.4A3189@localhost>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010806130254.24931A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> I didn't talk about posting diffs against current CVS version. My idea
> was to have a tag in CVS for current updated v2.03, so one who wants 
> to get it can easily do that (eg. 'cvs get -r v2_03_b djgpp')

You are talking about starting a branch.  That would be too much trouble, 
I think, since the number of functions that need to be patched is 
relatively small.

> I would prefer that rather than simpy posted diffs against released 
> v2.03 as they may become obsolete already after some weeks

??? djdev203.zip and djlsr203.zip are not going to change anymore, so why 
would the diffs become obsolete, ever?

The only changes that could happen are patches for additional problems as 
we find them.  Adding another patch is easy.

But even if you use a partially patched libc, it is IMHO much better than 
using the CVS head version.

- Raw text -