On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:41:59 -0500 Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfef...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 29 August 2011 10:13, Andy Green <andy.gr...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 08/29/2011 09:22 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > > >> It's not enough if you still want to refer to it via SHA, due to > >> repo peculiarities. It should be also reachable from one of the > >> live branches (so, instead of a tag, a branch can be created right > >> away). > > > > Sorry... this means for a rebase tree, we have to spawn a new > > branch per push to public git? We already spawn a tag per push to > > keep a finger on the tree so it won't be garbage collected: no > > great problem, but a branch per push? > > I think this can just happen as part of the build cycle. If we track > the tree directly the build system can lay down a branch automatically > after release. > > We could probably just update the branch after the automerge step. For > those who are just getting their feet wet with CI the flow is: > > Sync build > Apply patch > Build > Regress build > on regress success, merge patch > Save build, gen pinned-manifest > > Anyway, this isn't an issue with repo, its a sha1 reachability issue. > repo 's just a foreach git tool. Let's just look at it from different side - repo is not designed to work with manifests containing raw SHA revs, google doesn't bless that ;-) > > > Is it perhaps possible to improve "repo" instead? > > > > -Andy > > > > -- > > Andy Green | TI Landing Team Leader > > Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs | Follow Linaro > > http://facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106 - > > http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://linaro.org/linaro-blog > > -- Best Regards, Paul Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
