On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Cliff Brake <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Chris Larson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I like the concept. It seems not unlike the 'master' vs 'next' or linux > vs > > linux-test, or indeed, as you imply, unstable vs testing in debian. I do > > want to point out that you could, if you chose to, include the tested > > baselines in the message attached to the tag (if annotated). The only > > downside to that being you couldn't add to it after the fact the way you > > could with a wiki. At a minimum, I'd link to the wiki page for that tag > > from a tag message. > > Thanks for the ideas -- I have updated the process some, and I think > we could apply the tag on the following Monday after the testing is > complete -- this would allow us to add the annotations. > > I'm also thinking on the next cycle to use the name testing-next > (instead of testing-testing) for branch we create every week for > testing. Another similar idea would be to use git-notes to mark up commits/tags with the builds known to work at that point, and git log would show that information. Unfortunately git-notes fetching/pushing/merging isn't quite up to par yet, but something to think about. The advantage of that approach is that the notes are supplementary information to the commits / tags, you can manipulate them after the fact without changing the commit hash :) -- Christopher Larson clarson at kergoth dot com Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus Maintainer - Tslib Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
