Hi Gents;
I've created a new branch maint-5.2, containing previous maint (5.2.x ) with
the purpose to commit fixes to 5.2.x if necessary, and merged master into maint
(now 6.0.x).
maint should be for fixes and changes for the 6.0.x series.
master is open for development >= 6.1.x
Andrew now is
Am 30.07.2013 19:53, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>
> Le 28 juil. 2013 à 19:28, KP Kirchdoerfer a
> écrit :
>>
>> Yes, sounds easier and more towards how we do releases.
>> I'm keen to tag versions when doing a new release, so that won't be a
>> problem.
>>
>> A question, possibly asked before, how
Le 28 juil. 2013 à 19:28, KP Kirchdoerfer a
écrit :
>
> Yes, sounds easier and more towards how we do releases.
> I'm keen to tag versions when doing a new release, so that won't be a
> problem.
>
> A question, possibly asked before, how do we keep branches like next in
> sync with master/main
Hi Yves
on 26.07.2013 19:30, Yves Blusseau wrote:
>
> Le 24 juil. 2013 à 19:22, Erich Titl a écrit :
>
>> Hi KP
>>
...
>
>
> But why changing stuff in 4.x if we never release it again.
> It's time to upgrade to version 5.x.
Because it takes time :-)
cheers
Erich
smime.p7s
Description
Am 28.07.2013 10:47, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>
> Le 27 juil. 2013 à 20:08, KP Kirchdoerfer a
> écrit :
>
>> Am 27.07.2013 19:31, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>>>
>>> Le 27 juil. 2013 à 11:11, KP Kirchdoerfer a
>>> écrit :
>>>
Well, seems a problem is that we have developed two different conce
Le 27 juil. 2013 à 20:08, KP Kirchdoerfer a
écrit :
> Am 27.07.2013 19:31, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>>
>> Le 27 juil. 2013 à 11:11, KP Kirchdoerfer a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Well, seems a problem is that we have developed two different concepts
>>> and naming schemes over time, which are not in syn
Am 27.07.2013 19:31, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>
> Le 27 juil. 2013 à 11:11, KP Kirchdoerfer a
> écrit :
>
>> Well, seems a problem is that we have developed two different concepts
>> and naming schemes over time, which are not in sync.
>> See:
>> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/bering-uclibc/index.ph
Le 27 juil. 2013 à 11:11, KP Kirchdoerfer a
écrit :
> Well, seems a problem is that we have developed two different concepts
> and naming schemes over time, which are not in sync.
> See:
> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/bering-uclibc/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=8&MMN
Hi Yves;
Am 27.07.2013 10:54, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>
> Le 27 juil. 2013 à 00:44, KP Kirchdoerfer a
> écrit :
>>
>> My understanding is that we also don't release 5.0.0.x, or something
>> else - 5.0.1 is the maintenance version for 5.0. The changes are mostly
>> package updates but no big cha
Le 27 juil. 2013 à 00:44, KP Kirchdoerfer a
écrit :
>
> My understanding is that we also don't release 5.0.0.x, or something
> else - 5.0.1 is the maintenance version for 5.0. The changes are mostly
> package updates but no big changes.
NO, maint is for old version stable and released version
Hi Yves;
Am 26.07.2013 19:30, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>
> Le 24 juil. 2013 à 19:22, Erich Titl a écrit :
>
>> Hi KP
>>
>> on 24.07.2013 19:11, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
>>> Hi all;
>>> hi Yves;
>>>
>>> now that 5.0 has gone stable and even a first beta of 5.0.1 is out, I
>>> think it's about time
Le 24 juil. 2013 à 19:22, Erich Titl a écrit :
> Hi KP
>
> on 24.07.2013 19:11, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
>> Hi all;
>> hi Yves;
>>
>> now that 5.0 has gone stable and even a first beta of 5.0.1 is out, I
>> think it's about time to move "master" branch to "maint".
>
> What would be the old cont
Hi KP
on 24.07.2013 19:11, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Hi all;
> hi Yves;
>
> now that 5.0 has gone stable and even a first beta of 5.0.1 is out, I
> think it's about time to move "master" branch to "maint".
What would be the old content of maint then and how would one access it?
Should we branch o
Hi all;
hi Yves;
now that 5.0 has gone stable and even a first beta of 5.0.1 is out, I
think it's about time to move "master" branch to "maint".
If Andrew agrees, and does have some spare time to work on it, the first
addition to the new master could be his work in andrew/linux-headers -
I'd like
Hi;
Am 02.04.2013 09:05, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>>
>>> $git cherry -v master origin/buc5-x86_64-toolchain
>>> + c99432cb0297ef5c4d84aa3ece351414d29a2d49 Add x86_64-net6501-linux-uclibc
>>> toolchain
>>>
>>> Are we okay to merge it ?
>>
>> If it works..., I can't test.
>> Does it mean we need t
>
>> $git cherry -v master origin/buc5-x86_64-toolchain
>> + c99432cb0297ef5c4d84aa3ece351414d29a2d49 Add x86_64-net6501-linux-uclibc
>> toolchain
>>
>> Are we okay to merge it ?
>
> If it works..., I can't test.
> Does it mean we need to create another image?
Yes it works, i have a net501 boar
Am 01.04.2013 10:37, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>
> Le 31 mars 2013 à 23:06, Erich Titl a écrit :
>
>> Am 31.03.2013 20:41, schrieb KP Kirchdoerfer:
>>> Hi all;
>>>
>>> I just looked into the branches we have:
>>>
>>> git branch -r
>>> origin/buc5-x86_64-toolchain
>>> origin/maint
>>> origin
Le 31 mars 2013 à 23:06, Erich Titl a écrit :
> Am 31.03.2013 20:41, schrieb KP Kirchdoerfer:
>> Hi all;
>>
>> I just looked into the branches we have:
>>
>> git branch -r
>> origin/buc5-x86_64-toolchain
>> origin/maint
>> origin/maint-4.0
>> origin/maint-4.2
>> origin/master
>> or
Am 31.03.2013 20:41, schrieb KP Kirchdoerfer:
> Hi all;
>
> I just looked into the branches we have:
>
> git branch -r
>origin/buc5-x86_64-toolchain
>origin/maint
>origin/maint-4.0
>origin/maint-4.2
>origin/master
>origin/next
>origin/pu
>origin/rpi
>origin/ybl/m
Hi all;
I just looked into the branches we have:
git branch -r
origin/buc5-x86_64-toolchain
origin/maint
origin/maint-4.0
origin/maint-4.2
origin/master
origin/next
origin/pu
origin/rpi
origin/ybl/modules-OO
Can we delete/remove
origin/buc5-x86_64-toolchain
origin/maint-4.0
20 matches
Mail list logo
