Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I'm happy to rephrase it however you'd like, but I'm a bit confused by > the "saw any mention in the proposed log message". I'm fairly sure > paragraph 2 onwards covers this, i.e. how linux-gcc's behavior is > changed (as it also regressed). Yeah, true, """Likewise for the linux-gcc job CC=gcc-8 was changed to the implicit CC=gcc, which would select GCC 9.4.0 instead of GCC 8.4.0.""" that you wrote is exactly about it. I was confused because immediately after that you said it was not a bug, so I dismissed it as not part or the real issue. Perhaps striking that "not a bug" part may make it less confusing? I dunno. > What I suppose is left undiscussed is that jobs that don't define > CC_PACKAGE at all won't be impacted, is that what you wanted to be > explicitly mentioned? Yes, I agree that is a good idea, too. Or you can steal the "before and after" table I gave you in the message you are responding to, if you think it helps. Thanks.
