Paul Mundt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I do have the 1.26789 rev, but not 1.26831 (this is the one that
> caused the reject, ,bkcvs-last-rev is currently 1.26830).
That's fine, the ,bkcvs-last-rev file is only update if the
patch/commit succeeded.
> Lets see if 1.26789 lines up with what is in BK.. it's going to take
> awhile to build up to these patch levels in my revlib, so I will keep you
> posted once this finishes up.
Do a grep in {arch}/..../patch-log for this number and do a "tla
get-changeset" on that patch number. You can look afterwards in the
directory created, it is much faster than using the revlib (actually I
always make sure not to use library revisions with this repository
since it takes ages to create).
> I started tracking at 2.6.10 (I figured I would start out with the
> example you provided to make sure nothing out of the ordinary happened,
> prior to trying to go back any further). So the ,bkcvs-last-rev I had
> when starting out was 1.24782.
I think it is better to do some intermediate diffs on -rcX releases
with the kernel.org archives to make sure there are not differences.
> The base-0 log is a bit long, so instead of wasting everyone elses
> bandwidth, I'll send this to you privately.
Well, I meant patch-1, I realised that base-0 is the initial import
and the file list want tell much. Patch-1 log shows the first BKCVS
revision you used, that's what I was interested in.
Catalin
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
