PR1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list

3 msg	gcc 4.2.2, libgomp under cygwin

PR1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
\ Steven Bosscher (26 Nov 2007)
. \ Paolo Bonzini (26 Nov 2007)
. . \ Joseph S. Myers (26 Nov 2007)
. . . \ Daniel Berlin (27 Nov 2007)

6 msg	Idea to refine -Wtype-limits
1 msg	Bounce Test
1 msg	[Fwd: Libiberty problem in gcc-4.3 snapshots]
7 msg	[RFC] [PATCH] 32-bit pointers in x86-64
8 msg	Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC. Choic...
4 msg	Autovectorizing HIRLAM; some progress.
3 msg	Infinite loop when trying to bootstrap trunk
1 msg	gcc-4.3-20071123 is now available
1 msg	Status of GCC 4.3 on IA64 (Debian)
5 msg	[Fwd: Re: FW: matrix linking]
8 msg	Does gcc support compiling for windows x86-64?
1 msg	RiW k sLG
7 msg	-Wconversion bug in g++-4.3?
5 msg	Simple way to write almost same pattern?
2 msg	unsatisfied link error
1 msg	gcc-4.2-20071121 is now available
2 msg	Status of GCC 4.3 on SPARC (Debian)
7 msg	Problem with ARM_DOUBLEWORD_ALIGN on ARM

Subject:	PR1634: Request for gcc-cvs-patches list
Group:	Gcc
From:	Steven Bosscher
Date:	26 Nov 2007

Hello,

Back when God hadn't invented the dinosaurs yet (7 years ago) Joseph
opened a bug report requesting the creation of a gcc-cvs-patches
mailing list. The bug report can be found here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR1634.

Then, nothing happened for many years, a few comments aside.

Joseph wants to keep this bug report open to help "actively
remembering" people about this open issue, and to track this issue
over time. To me it seems there is nothing to track if no-one follows
up on te bug report. And with >4500 open bug report, I also don't see
how people are going to find this one simple requests. It is like a
needle in the hay stack, and nobody is even looking for the needle.

So I'm taking the issue here.

Do people think it is a good idea to have a gcc-cvs-patches list (or
gcc-svn-patches, also fine), where all patches automatically get sent
to, exactly as they are committed to SVN (maybe in gzip'ed form)?
This would have been especially useful before GCC started using SVN,
but even today there are some reasons to have this, as discussed in
the bug report.

Personally, I like the idea. But someone (probably Joseph, as the
requester) should persue the idea. If sufficient people thing this is
a good idea, we can think about how to implement it. Or the idea can
be rejected. In either case, the enhancement can finally be closed.

Gr.
Steven