On 05/05/2015 14:20, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote:
*From:*ext Maxim Uvarov [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 8:20 PM
*To:* Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: Reverts in the repo ...
On 4 May 2015 at 13:40, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Maxim Uvarov [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:24 PM
> To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Reverts in the repo ...
>
> On 04/30/2015 14:24, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> > .. are not user friendly.
> >
> > 1) git pull (in master)
> > 2) git checkout api-next
> > 3) git pull
> >
> > Results conflict in packet_io.h:
> >
> > <<<<<<< HEAD
> > * @note dev name loop is specially pktio reserved name for
device used
> for
> > * testing. Usually it's loop back interface.
> > =======
> > * @note The device name "loop" is a reserved name for a loopback
> device used
> > * for testing purposes.
> >>>>>>>> 0162f9e00e2b55a45aa391be512672a06ac03c30
> >
> > .. and now *every* user need to fix this. This is an easy fix, but
that
> may not be always the case.
> No, it's because you have that local change. Others will not see this.
The same lines (of two versions of Bill's v1 and v2 commits) conflict
also on branches that do not modify packet_io.h at all. I think that
everyone that have pulled api-next after the v1 but before the v2 see
the issue (when pulling now the v2).
-Petri
Petri, you should not use git pull for api-next. It's development
branch and it supposed that you do something like that:
git fetch
git rebase -i FETCH_HEAD
Maxim.
Master and api-next should have the same work flow - either reverts
are acceptable on both branches or on neither.
In general, history rewriting should be avoided on public branches.
Just fix mistakes with new patches/commits on top. Actual rewriting
should be needed very rarely - e.g. to undo accidental addition of
garbage (files/data that was never meant to be in version control).
-Petri
We have to define that or redefine. Before I had information that
api-next is development branch which can include raw patches with
missing sign offs. That patches can be updated to include sign-offs or
new version of patches.
Maxim.
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
