Hi, On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 15:38 +0200, Janusz Kozerski wrote: > 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.
The current 'upstream' branch has most probably been created/maintained with 'gbs import <upstream-release-tarball>'. > 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. Just a note that when tracking upstream directly (like in your sandbox) the content of gbs-generated tarball (usually) differs from the real released tarball. Basically, it's missing the stuff added with "make dist" by the upstream project. A way to combine upstream git and upstream release tarballs is to use the --upstream-vcs-tag option of gbs import. This will maintain the upstream git history, but in addition, add the diff between the "real" upstream release tag (defined by --upstream-vcs-tag) and upstream release tarball as one commit on top of the "real" upstream release tag. E.g. in case of openssl something like: $ gbs import --upstream-vcs-tag=OpenSSL_1_0_1j openssl-1.0.1j.tar.gz You could try it out and see if you find it useful. Thanks, Markus _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
