Hi Rom, On 2/25/13 18:14 , Rom Walton wrote: > Now we come to the extraction of patch sets from v1, the patches > reference SHA-1 values that exist in the botched SVN migration. So > git-am would complain about missing SHA-1 values and abort. In order to > fix that situation I created a new branch, manually applied the patch, > extracted the patch, copy the patch header from the old patch file to > the new patch file, rename new patch file to the old patch file, > checkout master and apply modified patch.
On 3/1/13 17:20 , Oliver Bock wrote: > Also, the way you generated the patches (straight git format-patch) > linearized the history and changed the order of several commits (a known > effect). In contrast, I replayed the original history as close as > possible which makes it easier to do v1/v2 cross-checks > > Comparing your v2 with my v2 I also found a number of white-space > changes, presumably introduced while you edited/recreated the patches > manually, something I usually didn't have to do. I only used > combinations of format-patch/am and cherry-pick with v1 SHA1s, no need > to construct new patches. At some point (rather sooner than later) we should decide how we're going to continue in order to avoid doubling the effort. In my migration attempt so far I didn't have to manually edit any patches for the reasons you described, naturally avoiding any accidental changes of content (incl. whitespaces). My approach also doesn't linearize/flatten history or change the order of things. Since we, E@H, really do care about BOINC's code base and history I could offer to continue my effort until our repo is in sync with upstream. Thoughts? Best, Oliver _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
