On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:42:13PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:

quoted

quoted

Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
reference when getting feedback and such.

A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
corresponds to exactly that.

Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ?

You can still clone Marcelo's tree at the label you want, and pull in
changes from the `old' (from last week) ppc tree, and label that.

I.e. if today Marcelo is at 2.4.25-pre6, while the ppc tree is at
2.4.25-pre1, and you want 2.4.25-pre2 for ppc, you can do this:
  - clone Marcelo's tree at 2.4.25-pre2
  - pull from ppc 2.4.25-pre1

Mmm, i see.

The only problem being that the ppc tree is not properly labeled, so you
will get stuff in at the state of the day, not things corresponding to
a known working state.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/