> push back to your own branch 
OK I have ported the changes to the latest engine-pu branch from github on 
a local branch I created (called bagLRU).  How do I push this back to 
github??
 
I tried:
 
git push origin bagLRU
 
but it did not do anything - just sat there forever.
 
Here is the output from "git branch --all" :
 
=======================================
$ git branch --all
* bagLRU
  list
  master
  origin/engine-pu
  remotes/origin/14perf
  remotes/origin/HEAD -> origin/master
  remotes/origin/engine-pu
  remotes/origin/gh-pages
  remotes/origin/master
  remotes/origin/stable
  remotes/origin/stable-1.3
rkapoor1@RKAPOOR1-MOBL4 /c/projs/mcd/memcached (bagLRU)
=======================================
 
I had checked out the engine-pu code into my local branch as:
 
git checkout -b bagLRU remotes/origin/engine-pu
 
Any clues on how do I push back my local branch (bagLRU) to gitHub?
 
thanks,
\rajiv

On Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49:07 PM UTC-7, Dormando wrote:

> That's a start, yes! 
>
> but: 
>
> 2.5: switch to engine-pu branch (after cloning) 
> 4: push back to your own branch 
>
> are all of the details. 
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, rajiv wrote: 
>
> > OK I am going to do it the right way :)  Question - are these the right 
> steps to do this : 
> >   
> > 1. "Fork" the repository on GitHub 
> > 2. "Clone" the repository to my local machine 
> > 3. Make my changes to the code locally 
> > 4. "Push" the commits back to gitHub 
> >   
> > thanks, 
> > \rajiv 
> > 
> > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:54:15 AM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: 
> >       Life will be much easier if you can use git to check out the code 
> tree. 
> >       Then you can compare tags, look at commit history for context, 
> etc. 
> > 
> >       But if not, then yes you're sort of stuck with what github can 
> offer you 
> >       as a download link. 
> > 
> >       Libevent is bundled at package time, so we don't have to keep it 
> in the 
> >       source tree. There's some magic in autogen there which grabs a 
> specified 
> >       version of libevent and adds it to the final tarball. So that 
> *should* be 
> >       missing, yes. 
> > 
> >       On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, rajiv wrote: 
> > 
> >       > I just downloaded from the engine-pu tree from  
> https://github.com/memcached/memcached/tree/engine-pu.  The only way I 
> could 
> >       download was as a ZIP file.  I don't 
> >       > see any link there to download a tarball.  Not that difference 
> is important but I notice that the contents of the ZIP are quiet 
> >       different from the version I 
> >       > already had.  For one - I don't see the bundled libevent? 
> >       >   
> >       > What I downloaded was: 
> >       >   
> >       > memcached-memcached-1.6.0-beta1-77-ge70f5ac.zip 
> >       >   
> >       > Just want to make sure I grabbed the right tree.  
> >       >   
> >       > thanks, 
> >       > \rajiv 
> >       > 
> >       > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:10:46 PM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: 
> >       >       Hey, 
> >       > 
> >       >       Wow, that sounds neat! I was hoping to bum some free 
> hardware from intel 
> >       >       so I could continue optimizing the 1.4 tree... :) 
> >       > 
> >       >       Any way, what version of 1.6 have you written this 
> against? One of the 
> >       >       released beta's or the source tree? 
> >       > 
> >       >       https://github.com/memcached/memcached/tree/engine-pu 
> >       > 
> >       >       Our main code tree is over at 
> github.com/memcached/memcached - the link I 
> >       >       posted above is the "1.6" tree, which is called 
> "engine-pu" on our end. 
> >       > 
> >       >       The best way for you to contribute is to grab the very 
> latest engine-pu 
> >       >       branch, and make sure your code fully works against that. 
> Then push your 
> >       >       tree with the new engine into it somewhere, ideally also 
> github. We can 
> >       >       then track changes and exchange feedback or easily merge 
> it (without 
> >       >       losing any history you feel like sharing with us). 
> >       > 
> >       >       Keep in midn that if you want us to distribute your engine 
> along with 1.6, 
> >       >       it'll need to have a compatible license. We also try to 
> not ship code 
> >       >       which is patent encumbered, so please disclose any which 
> may be in use in 
> >       >       your changes. 
> >       > 
> >       >       We really appreciate you taking the time to do this, at 
> any rate. I would 
> >       >       love to see the code! 
> >       > 
> >       >       have fun, 
> >       >       -Dormando 
> >       > 
> >       >       On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, rajiv wrote: 
> >       > 
> >       >       > Hi, 
> >       >       >   
> >       >       > I work at Intel and we have added a new optimized 
> "engine" to Memcached 1.6.  This engine uses parallel hash table accesses 
> >       and an LRU implementation 
> >       >       that gives us 
> >       >       > lock free GET operations.  We have tested this 
> version doing GET operations on 1 to 16 cores and seems to scale pretty 
> well. 
> >       >       >   
> >       >       > We would like to contribute these changes back to the 
> 1.6 branch.  Can someone tell me or point me to info on the process to 
> >       do that?  Is it is multi 
> >       >       step process 
> >       >       > where I first need to upload the entire 1.6 version that 
> we have with the new code and then later after some review we 
> >       integrate our changes into the 
> >       >       1.6 
> >       >       > mainline?  Or do I have to download lthe latest 1.6 
> branch, port our changes to it and post that?  Also where (URL) is it that 
> >       I would upload the 
> >       >       version/changes 
> >       >       > that I have? 
> >       >       >   
> >       >       > Sorry for these basic questions - I have never actually 
> contributed to Open Source code in the past. 
> >       >       >   
> >       >       > thanks, 
> >       >       > \rajiv 
> >       >       > 
> >       >       > 
> >       > 
> >       > 
> >       > 
> > 
> > 
> >

Reply via email to