Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Also, the description above merely says we use gcc-9 instead of gcc-8, without saying if that is a good change or not, which is another thing that needs to be said. In the larger context, if we aim to try different compilers, we should know which other ones we are using, and if linux-gcc job is meant to test gcc-8 (because we know there is another job that tests gcc-9), the change was a bug. But because you said it was not a bug, it made it unclear if that is merely an observation or it was pointing out our earlier mistake that should be corrected.
