I just logged on to daystrom and did 'hg rollback' in /z/repo/gem5-stable, which seems to have undone Nilay's push.
Nilay, I think you're free to try again. Steve On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:36 PM, nathan binkert <[email protected]> wrote: > hg strip will fix it, but you have to do it on the repository on > daystrom directly (in addition to yours). Git has a push --force flag. > Does mercurial have something similar? On my ipad so hard for me to > do any poking around. > > > > On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I updated the stable branch, but I made a mistake while pushing the > changes. I was trying to push just one changeset to test if things work > correctly. I did not mention the revision id for the changeset that I > wanted to push. Hence now gem5-stable repo is at the same point as gem5 > repo. > > > > I am not aware of any way for rolling back to some particular point in > past. Should we leave it as is? Or can we do something about it? > > > > > > This is exactly what happened: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [nilay@ribera] (10)$ hg update -r f58f93f1656c > > 1498 files updated, 0 files merged, 177 files removed, 0 files unresolved > > [nilay@ribera] (11)$ hg tip > > changeset: 9756:0b4a08751b42 > > tag: tip > > user: Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> > > date: Thu Jun 13 07:24:25 2013 -0500 > > summary: config: Do not instantiate membus when using ruby > > > > [nilay@ribera] (12)$ hg log | less > > [nilay@ribera] (13)$ hg summary > > parent: 9074:f58f93f1656c > > ARM: Fix issue with predicted next pc being wrong because of advance() > ordering. > > branch: default > > commit: 1042 unknown (clean) > > update: 682 new changesets (update) > > mq: 38 unapplied > > [nilay@ribera] (14)$ > > [nilay@ribera] (14)$ > > [nilay@ribera] (14)$ > > [nilay@ribera] (14)$ > > [nilay@ribera] (14)$ hg push ssh://[email protected]/gem5-stable > > pushing to ssh://[email protected]/gem5-stable > > The authenticity of host 'repo.gem5.org (141.212.106.70)' can't be > established. > > RSA key fingerprint is f8:fc:93:39:96:19:22:cd:df:71:ab:24:8d:46:41:74. > > Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)? yes > > Enter passphrase for key '/u/n/i/nilay/.ssh/id_rsa': > > searching for changes > > remote: Warning: Permanently added 'repo.gem5.org' (RSA) to the list of > known hosts. > > remote: adding changesets > > remote: adding manifests > > remote: adding file changes > > remote: added 683 changesets with 6830 changes to 1633 files > > remote: notify: sending 1 subscribers 683 changes > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -- > > Nilay > > > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Nilay Vaish wrote: > > > >> So I am going to update the gem5-stable repo over the weekend to the > following revision: > >> > >> changeset: 9644:07352f119e48 > >> user: Ali Saidi <[email protected]> > >> date: Mon Apr 22 13:20:31 2013 -0400 > >> summary: cpu: fix a switching issue with the o3 cpu. > >> > >> If we see any major bugs being reported by users of gem5-stable, I'll > try to see if any patches committed after 07352f119e48 can resolve those > and push them to the stable repo. > >> > >> -- > >> Nilay > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 24 May 2013, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > >> > >>> Just to add my two cents... as Ali said, Nilay's points are true but > he is > >>> not the first to raise them; we have had multiple lengthy discussions > on > >>> this list on defining an appropriate policy for regularly updating > >>> gem5-stable, only to have them all fall apart when it came to following > >>> through. > >>> I'll differ semantically with Nilay and Andreas on a few points though. > >>> First, gem5-stable is stable in the sense that it changes much less > >>> frequently than gem5 (much much much less... too much less... but it > does > >>> fit the definition of stable). Second, I'd say that gem5-stable is > not a > >>> "separate repository", it really is just a specific revision of the > gem5 > >>> tree. It's another clone of the same repo as gem5 (and is updated > just by > >>> pulling from gem5 as Ali pointed out). It only looks like a separate > >>> repository given the way we expose it on the web site. > >>> I'm all for giving it another go... I don't think we even need to > invent a > >>> new policy, just pull out the one we agreed on last time, but find a > way to > >>> make it happen. If we conclude that we're incapable of implementing a > >>> policy (a reasonable conclusion based on history) and it's better to > get > >>> rid of it than to leave it to get so stale, I'm OK with that too. > >>> Steve > >>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Ali Saidi <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> You should be able to just push to it. > >>>> Something like > >>>> hg clone http://repo.gem5.org/gem5 > >>>> cd gem5 > >>>> hg update -r <rev that is good/stable/whatever> > >>>> hg push ssh://[email protected]/gem5-stable > >>>> Ali > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
