B1;2802;0cOn Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:41:51AM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > So, I don't think that this patch would really be "beneficial to our
> > project", as it will only serve to artificially "improve" the statistics.
>
> Out of interest, would you extend this
Santiago Vila:
> I have very mixed feelings about this kind of patches.
>
> I fear that by modifying gcc to hide the improper usage of __DATE__
> and __TIME__, we could be removing an incentive for maintainers and
> authors to write software which is truly reproducible, i.e. we run
> the risk of
Santiago Vila wrote:
> So, I don't think that this patch would really be "beneficial to our
> project", as it will only serve to artificially "improve" the statistics.
Out of interest, would you extend this argument to argue for an
arbitrary build path?
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' :
