Hi John, Do you think that it would be better to keep current history of upstream branch and cherry-pick upstream history from version 1.0.1h to 1.0.1j (as I did on my sandbox) or overwrite whole upstream branch with upstream history (force push)?
And second question: Are merges from upstream branch to tizen branch OK? Do we want to merge upstream to tizen, or we want to keep linear history and cherry-pick commits from upstream to tizen? BR, Janusz On 2014-10-20 19:10:43, Whiteman, John L wrote: > Hi Janusz, > > I'm fine with the second approach. Other upstream packages are > already doing it and the history can be useful. > > Best Regards, > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Janusz Kozerski [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 6:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Tomasz Swierczek; Bartlomiej Grzelewski; Whiteman, John L; > Demeter, Michael > Subject: [openssl] upstream branch update > > Hi All, > > I've seen that on platform/upstream/openssl repository on upstream > branch, changes are pulled from upstream as a one big blob of code. > Wouldn't be better if we pull commits from upstream as they are? We > can have full git history instead of these blobs. > > I've pushed to a review a commit with update to 1.0.1j in existing > convenction. > https://review.tizen.org/gerrit/#/c/29027/1 > > I've also prepared a sandbox branch with the same upstream changes > (with full git history) rebased on tizen.org upstream branch: > https://review.tizen.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=platform%2Fupstream%2Fopenssl > .git; > a > =sho > rtlog;h=refs%2Fheads%2Fsandbox%2Fjkozerski%2Fupstream > > We should choose one way of moving changes from upstream. > We should do the same for tizen branch. > > BR, > Janusz Kozerski > > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
