On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> I am not sure to understand the technical ways to modify that; is CVS
> still mandatory?
Yes, the web pages reside in CVS. Not a lot different from SVN in
terms of operations, just `cvs update`, `cvs diff`, `cvs commit` instead
of the same svn co
On Jan 28, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> 2011/1/28 Basile Starynkevitch :
>>> Its intention is to mention noteworthy internal changes, i.e. changes
>>> interesting for, say, maintainers of backends/frontends outside the
>>> tree, and of course plugin developers upgrading from 4.5 t
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> I am not sure to understand what is the social rules to modify that. I
> suppose that any patch to that page should be approved with the same
> strong process as patches to trunk code?
I would say that any gcc maintainer may update the changes file without
explicit
2011/1/28 Basile Starynkevitch :
>> Its intention is to mention noteworthy internal changes, i.e. changes
>> interesting for, say, maintainers of backends/frontends outside the
>> tree, and of course plugin developers upgrading from 4.5 to 4.6.
>>
>
>
> I am not sure to understand what is the socia
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:43:28 +0200
Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> I have just added a new section (approved by Gerald) to the bottom of
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html
>
> Its intention is to mention noteworthy internal changes, i.e. changes
> interesting for, say, maintainers of backends/
I have just added a new section (approved by Gerald) to the bottom of
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html
Its intention is to mention noteworthy internal changes, i.e. changes
interesting for, say, maintainers of backends/frontends outside the
tree, and of course plugin developers upgrading fr
