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
Hi Folks
I am observing the following when building for bcmrpi
echo bcmrpi
bcmrpi
xzcat patch-4.4.3.xz | patch -p1 -s -d
/home/mega/leaf/devel/bering-6/source/armv6zk-unknown-linux-uclibcgnueabi/linux/linux-4.1
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-u
Hi Folks
it looks like perf on master is broken or has a missing dependency
make
DESTDIR=/home/mega/leaf/devel/bering-6/build/i486-unknown-linux-uclibc/perf/usr
-C
/home/mega/leaf/devel/bering-6/source/i486-unknown-linux-uclibc/linux/linux/tools/perf
install)
make[1]: Entering directory
`
Delayed unmounting is mostly for services that have delayed modules
loading (like wpa-supplicant or hostapd) to ensure that all is ok.
+ it isn't too complex - just store umount pid and then check in mount -
if pid file exists then kill process instead of mounting sqfs.
07.03.2016 23:31, Erich
Hi Andrew
Am 07.03.2016 um 22:46 schrieb Andrew:
> Delayed unmounting is mostly for services that have delayed modules
> loading (like wpa-supplicant or hostapd) to ensure that all is ok.
If you really want to do this right, then you would need to insert
control logic that communicates with the
Hi Andrew
Am 07.03.2016 um 21:46 schrieb Andrew:
> 07.03.2016 20:41, kp kirchdoerfer пишет:
...
>>
>> Another drawback is the time it needs to load modules.sqfs.
>> If we choose to that for several packages it will raise startup times
>> significantly.
> Delayed umount can solve this. Just termina
Hi Andrew
Am 07.03.2016 um 21:46 schrieb Andrew:
> 07.03.2016 20:41, kp kirchdoerfer пишет:
>> Am Montag, 7. März 2016, 20:26:58 schrieb Andrew:
>>> Maybe we should just mount storage till hostapd will start?
>> Will hostapd really load the modules without changes to the init process?
> If it lo
07.03.2016 20:41, kp kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Am Montag, 7. März 2016, 20:26:58 schrieb Andrew:
>> Maybe we should just mount storage till hostapd will start?
> Will hostapd really load the modules without changes to the init process?
If it loads modules earlier - it should load them now with full-w
Hi KP
Am 07.03.2016 um 18:42 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> Am Montag, 7. März 2016, 11:13:47 schrieb Erich Titl:
...
>>
>
> Needs to be patch-4.4.3.xz in repo/linux/buildtool.cfg
> Fixed in git.
Looks like you did not check it :-(
There is more than a single patch necessary.
mega@leafbuilder:~/le
Hi KP
Am 07.03.2016 um 19:41 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> Am Montag, 7. März 2016, 20:26:58 schrieb Andrew:
>> Maybe we should just mount storage till hostapd will start?
>
> Will hostapd really load the modules without changes to the init process?
I doubt it.
> The later is something I try to
Am 07.03.2016 um 19:26 schrieb Andrew:
> Maybe we should just mount storage till hostapd will start?
It is not hostapd, it's wpa supplicant and this is not new-initrd, so
the module copying is still done the old way.
>
> Also, maybe it'll be good to add delayed umount (for ex., 3-5 seconds)?
I
Sorry, another response
Am Montag, 7. März 2016, 20:26:58 schrieb Andrew:
> Maybe we should just mount storage till hostapd will start?
And what happens if hostpad isn't loaded at all?
kp
--
Transform Data into Opportu
Am Montag, 7. März 2016, 20:26:58 schrieb Andrew:
> Maybe we should just mount storage till hostapd will start?
Will hostapd really load the modules without changes to the init process?
The later is something I try to avoid,cause it will make us to maintain a
different init for hostapd.
Anothe
Maybe we should just mount storage till hostapd will start?
Also, maybe it'll be good to add delayed umount (for ex., 3-5 seconds)?
07.03.2016 19:06, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi Folks
>
> OK after some twiddling with buildtool.cfg in master I succeeded to
> build a 486 version.
>
> There are a few qui
Hi Folks
OK after some twiddling with buildtool.cfg in master I succeeded to
build a 486 version.
There are a few quirks in shorewall and specifically we need to add the
following to /etc/modules in case we want to connect to WPA2 protected AP's
# appears to be needed for WPA/WPA2
ccm
ctr
Now m
Am Montag, 7. März 2016, 11:13:47 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi Folks
>
> Is master supposed to compile completely? To me it looks broken.
>
> mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-6$ git branch
> * master
> new-initrd-6.x
> mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-6$ git pull
> remote: Counting objects:
Hi Folks
Is master supposed to compile completely? To me it looks broken.
mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-6$ git branch
* master
new-initrd-6.x
mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-6$ git pull
remote: Counting objects: 31, done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (16/16), done.
remote: Tota
Am 06.03.2016 um 15:22 schrieb Andrew:
> 06.03.2016 15:48, Erich Titl пишет:
...
>> OK
> IMHO it's easier that maintain abstract 'common config' that isn't
> correspond to any target so can't be checked at all.
>>> P.S. it seems like you forgot to commit umount_modules script into repo.
>> M.
06.03.2016 15:48, Erich Titl пишет:
> Am 06.03.2016 um 11:05 schrieb Andrew:
>> 4.4 config seems to be re-created from scratch; + currently we use i486
>> as base config - so I moved all changes from i486 cdiff to base config.
> That is quite a bit puzzling that the 486 config should be common to a
Am 06.03.2016 um 11:05 schrieb Andrew:
> 4.4 config seems to be re-created from scratch; + currently we use i486
> as base config - so I moved all changes from i486 cdiff to base config.
That is quite a bit puzzling that the 486 config should be common to all.
OK
>
> P.S. it seems like you for
4.4 config seems to be re-created from scratch; + currently we use i486
as base config - so I moved all changes from i486 cdiff to base config.
P.S. it seems like you forgot to commit umount_modules script into repo.
06.03.2016 00:33, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi Andrew
>
> Am 05.03.2016 um 20:30 schr
Hi Andrew
Am 05.03.2016 um 20:30 schrieb Andrew:
> I cleaned configs (there was a lot of strange things - as I understood,
> you just build storage drivers in kernel instead of modules, all other
> changes are unnecessary?).
There should not be any other changes in config, if they are I would
l
Hi Andrew
Am 05.03.2016 um 20:30 schrieb Andrew:
> I cleaned configs (there was a lot of strange things - as I understood,
> you just build storage drivers in kernel instead of modules, all other
> changes are unnecessary?).
The ones to config, yes, but there is more to it . I pushed a
new-init
I cleaned configs (there was a lot of strange things - as I understood,
you just build storage drivers in kernel instead of modules, all other
changes are unnecessary?).
Can you review branch diff to master?
05.03.2016 14:55, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi Andrew
>
> Am 05.03.2016 um 11:54 schrieb Andr
Hi Andrew
Am 05.03.2016 um 11:54 schrieb Andrew:
> Hi.
>
> I'll try to look on it at this weekend.
I believe I made some progress
mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-6$ git status
On branch new-initrd-6.x
Your branch and 'origin/new-initrd-6.x' have diverged,
and have 101 and 17 different comm
Hi.
I'll try to look on it at this weekend.
05.03.2016 12:51, Erich Titl пишет:
> Am 05.03.2016 um 00:57 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
>> Hi Erich;
>> ...
>>
>> They are not forgotten, they are still used for armv6 toolchain.
>> We need to update the raspberry kernel (armv6) to 4.4, until then both ke
Am 05.03.2016 um 00:57 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> Hi Erich;
> ...
>
> They are not forgotten, they are still used for armv6 toolchain.
> We need to update the raspberry kernel (armv6) to 4.4, until then both kernel
> versions configs are needed to keep the kernel for raspberry pi at 4.1, which
>
Hi Erich;
Am Freitag, 4. März 2016, 22:50:09 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi Folks
>
> I am trying to rebase new-initrd to master and failing miserably due to
> weird (for me) conflicts. In order to make progress I would like to
> suggest to clean up master in a way to be at least consistent with the
>
Hi Folks
I am trying to rebase new-initrd to master and failing miserably due to
weird (for me) conflicts. In order to make progress I would like to
suggest to clean up master in a way to be at least consistent with the
actual kernel release, e.g. the person responsable for the introduction
of 4.4
Hi.
Use buildtool.local instead.
15.10.2015 00:38, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi Folks
>
> stupid question...
>
> How do you avoid the following
>
> mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-uclibc$ git status
> Auf Branch maint
> Ihr Branch ist auf dem selben Stand wie 'origin/maint'.
>
> Änderungen, die ni
Hi Folks
stupid question...
How do you avoid the following
mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-uclibc$ git status
Auf Branch maint
Ihr Branch ist auf dem selben Stand wie 'origin/maint'.
Änderungen, die nicht zum Commit vorgemerkt sind:
(benutzen Sie "git add ..." um die Änderungen zum Commi
Looks like a git clean took care of the problem. I still don't know
where the merge comes from though
Am 08.04.2015 um 11:38 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi Folks
>
> It looks like something went wild in the master branch, I am getting
> tons of deleted and untracked files, as if the master changed a lo
Hi Folks
It looks like something went wild in the master branch, I am getting
tons of deleted and untracked files, as if the master changed a lot.
I am doing a separate clone now to see if by any chance my own
repositore went berserk, else I believe the following inadverted commit
is the culprit
> Hi Yves
>
Hi Erich,
> I have a question regarding my commit branch which I sync to the repository.
>
> I would like to rebase this branch to tag 5.1.3 to be able to work with
> this release.
>
> I read about rebase --onto, but to me this does not make sense, since I
> did not branch off a ta
Hi Yves
I have a question regarding my commit branch which I sync to the repository.
I would like to rebase this branch to tag 5.1.3 to be able to work with
this release.
I read about rebase --onto, but to me this does not make sense, since I
did not branch off a tag, but another branch.
Is the
Hi Tom
Am 17.12.2014 um 04:07 schrieb Tom Eastep:
>
> Hi Erich,
>
> I'm seeing the same issue with the Shorewall Sourceforge Git repository.
Looks like a temporary problem at sourceforge. I am worrying nevertheless.
Thanks
Erich
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
---
On 12/15/2014 2:11 PM, Erich Titl wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> any ideas how to straighten this
>
> mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-uclibc$ git status
> Auf Branch config
> Ihr Branch ist vor 'origin/config' um 2 Commits.
> (benutzen Sie "git push" um lokale Commits zu publizieren)
>
> nicht
Hi Folks
any ideas how to straighten this
mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-uclibc$ git status
Auf Branch config
Ihr Branch ist vor 'origin/config' um 2 Commits.
(benutzen Sie "git push" um lokale Commits zu publizieren)
nichts zu committen, Arbeitsverzeichnis unverändert
mega@leafbuild
Hi Yves
Am 08.12.2014 um 12:40 schrieb Yves Blusseau:
...
>> committen Sie dann das Ergebnis.
>>
>> Now the big question is, how to handle the conflicts and what the hell
>> are they?
>
> I think the conflicts are because the files are changed in the repository and
> are not in sync with your lo
> mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-uclibc$ git pull
> Password:
> remote: Counting objects: 84, done.
> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (55/55), done.
> remote: Total 55 (delta 34), reused 0 (delta 0)
> Unpacking objects: 100% (55/55), done.
> Von ssh://git.code.sf.net/p/leaf/bering-uclibc
>
Hi Folks especially the git advocates
I am struggling again, after a few changes in my config branch I am
faced with the following.
mega@leafbuilder:~/leaf/devel/bering-uclibc$ git commit
[config 0536506] A big batch of small changes in the webconf package.
Lots of adaptions to a slighttly more m
Am Dienstag, 2. Dezember 2014, 18:06:25 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> Hi all;
>
> I'm trying to push a commit to our maint branch, but I do get an error:
>
> Delta compression using up to 4 threads.
> Compressing objects: 100% (7/7), done.
> Writing objects: 100% (7/7), 791.30 KiB | 0 bytes/s, done.
Hi all;
I'm trying to push a commit to our maint branch, but I do get an error:
Delta compression using up to 4 threads.
Compressing objects: 100% (7/7), done.
Writing objects: 100% (7/7), 791.30 KiB | 0 bytes/s, done.
Total 7 (delta 5), reused 0 (delta 0)
error: insufficient permission for addin
Le 10 août 2014 à 11:55, kp kirchdoerfer a écrit
:
> Hi Yves;
>
> Am Sonntag, 10. August 2014, 10:21:08 schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> i have clone our leaf repository to github without any binaries in it. So
>> the repository has a size of 7MB. You can checkout it with:
>> git clone
Hi Yves;
Am Sonntag, 10. August 2014, 10:21:08 schrieb Yves Blusseau:
> Hi all,
>
> i have clone our leaf repository to github without any binaries in it. So
> the repository has a size of 7MB. You can checkout it with:
> git clone g...@github.com:LEAF-Bering-uClibc/bering-uclibc.git
> The purpo
Hi all,
i have clone our leaf repository to github without any binaries in it. So the
repository has a size of 7MB.
You can checkout it with:
git clone g...@github.com:LEAF-Bering-uClibc/bering-uclibc.git
The purpose of this repository is to check and test the tools that is use to
manage this r
Hi all,
are you ok to remove old prelease tags like: v4.2.1-beta1, v5.0-alpha,
v5.0.2-rc3, …. ?
keeping only stable release tags.
Regards,
Yves
--
Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot you
On 07/22/2014 05:12 AM, Yves Blusseau wrote:
> Le 22 juil. 2014 à 14:08, Mike Noyes a écrit :
-snip-
>> I concur with KP and Andrew that our current repository works, and meets
>> SF requirements for source code. If you want to try something different,
>> SF supports multiple git repositories.
>>
Le 22 juil. 2014 à 14:08, Mike Noyes a écrit :
> On 07/22/2014 04:41 AM, Yves Blusseau wrote:
>> Le 22 juil. 2014 à 11:47, Per Sjoholm a écrit
>> :
>>
>>> Can git submodules be of help in reducing size
>>> http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Submodules
>>>
>>> Github also has feutures .
>>
On 07/22/2014 04:41 AM, Yves Blusseau wrote:
> Le 22 juil. 2014 à 11:47, Per Sjoholm a écrit :
>
>> Can git submodules be of help in reducing size
>> http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Submodules
>>
>> Github also has feutures .
> No as each git repositories contain all the history.
Yves,
I con
Le 22 juil. 2014 à 11:47, Per Sjoholm a écrit :
> Can git submodules be of help in reducing size
> http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Submodules
>
> Github also has feutures .
No as each git repositories contain all the history.
Regards,
Yves
Can git submodules be of help in reducing size
http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Submodules
Github also has feutures .
/Per
--
Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
search up to 200,0
Hi Yves
on 12.02.2014 14:09, Erich Titl wrote:
> Hi Yves
>
> on 12.02.2014 12:39, Yves Blusseau wrote:
>>
> ...
>>
>> The name of the working directory is not important.
>
> Well this is the first directory level underneath the work directory. It
> appears to be managed by git, so how is it mapp
Hi Folks
It may be painful for you but I am struggling to understand what
happened to my repository software decay?
mega@luna:~/leaf/devel/leaf.new/bering-uclibc/repo/shorewall> git pull
Password:
Already up-to-date.
mega@luna:~/leaf/devel/leaf.new/bering-uclibc> git branch
generalize-
Hi David;
Am Montag, 10. Februar 2014, 20:00:16 schrieb David M Brooke:
> Hi kp,
>
> Thanks for the responses.
>
> On Sat, 2014-02-08 at 00:13 +0100, KP Kirchdörfer wrote:
> > Hi David;
> >
> > Am Freitag, 7. Februar 2014, 21:09:32 schrieb David M Brooke:
> > > Hi leaf-devel,
> > >
> > > I've
Le 10 févr. 2014 à 21:00, David M Brooke a écrit :
>>> I also have a new Package (vnstat) which I'd like to add. That's not a
>>> bug-fix, so should I create my feature branch off "master" rather than
>>> "maint"?
>>
Fork off the new feature branch from maint if you want to add the new package
Le 7 févr. 2014 à 22:09, David M Brooke a écrit :
> Hi leaf-devel,
>
Hi David !
> What I did was:
> - Created a new local branch (called "trac#93") based on "maint"
> - Committed the code change against that new branch
> - Merged the bugfix branch back into « maint" (with "--no-ff")
You
Hi kp,
Thanks for the responses.
On Sat, 2014-02-08 at 00:13 +0100, KP Kirchdörfer wrote:
> Hi David;
>
> Am Freitag, 7. Februar 2014, 21:09:32 schrieb David M Brooke:
> > Hi leaf-devel,
> >
> > I've been busy with other things for a while and I haven't had much time
> > for LEAF development. H
Hi David;
Am Freitag, 7. Februar 2014, 21:09:32 schrieb David M Brooke:
> Hi leaf-devel,
>
> I've been busy with other things for a while and I haven't had much time
> for LEAF development. However there are a couple of new projects I'm
> doing with LEAF and some of the work is of general interes
Hi leaf-devel,
I've been busy with other things for a while and I haven't had much time
for LEAF development. However there are a couple of new projects I'm
doing with LEAF and some of the work is of general interest (though some
of it probably isn't!).
Since I last did much LEAF development I un
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
Hi all, it's very import to have good git commit messages.
The common use rule is to use a first short line (50 chars or less) that
is the summary for the commit.
Then a blank line
Then a more detailed explanatory text (wrap at about 72 chars). Use
paragraphs to separate topics.
If you use vim as
> Ok, I'll make more verbose comments to commits.
> P.S. swap is required for zram support - I should rebase
> andrew/zram-support on top of andrew/enable-swap?
Yes you can do that even if it not great. Do:
git checkout andrew/zram-support
git rebase --onto andrew/enable-swap master
Then merge
26.08.2012 19:32, Yves Blusseau пишет:
> Le 26 août 2012 à 17:24, Yves Blusseau a écrit :
>
>> As git cherry -v master give me:
>>
>> + 0306cd0 enabled mkswap and swapon/swapoff applets in bb
>> + f662339 Disabled patch that removes swap stats (now swap is on by default)
>> + 90ff671 fixed upnpd as
Am 26.08.2012 18:32, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>
> Le 26 août 2012 à 17:24, Yves Blusseau a écrit :
>
>> As git cherry -v master give me:
>>
>> + 0306cd0 enabled mkswap and swapon/swapoff applets in bb
>> + f662339 Disabled patch that removes swap stats (now swap is on by default)
>> + 90ff671 fixe
Le 26 août 2012 à 17:24, Yves Blusseau a écrit :
> As git cherry -v master give me:
>
> + 0306cd0 enabled mkswap and swapon/swapoff applets in bb
> + f662339 Disabled patch that removes swap stats (now swap is on by default)
> + 90ff671 fixed upnpd assembly
> + b3ec368 added userland zram suppor
As git cherry -v master give me:
+ 0306cd0 enabled mkswap and swapon/swapoff applets in bb
+ f662339 Disabled patch that removes swap stats (now swap is on by default)
+ 90ff671 fixed upnpd assembly
+ b3ec368 added userland zram support; some init script rework
+ 027d722 removed unneeded delay; ad
Hi all,
i made this mail because i see a lot of commit in next branches without any
topic branch. It's ok if you keep your topic branches private, but it's bad if
you commit directly in next branch.
The next branch must not be used to fix or add new feature. It's an
experimental branch that can
Here's a great document about Git Best Practices:
http://sethrobertson.github.com/GitBestPractices/
Regards,
Yves
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
thre
Hi all,
i have wrote a guideline to use git for the Bering-uClibc project:
https://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/leaf/index.php?title=Developer_Guide_-_Git_Workflows
Feel free to comment and correct the guide !
If you have two rules to retain:
* Never merge downwards e.g don't merge nex
Everyone,
Git project seeks discussion on "push" change
https://lwn.net/Articles/487131/#Comments
--
Mike Noyes
http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes
https://profiles.google.com/mhnoyes
--
This SF email is sponsosred by:
On 02/06/2012 11:27 AM, Mike Noyes wrote:
-snip-
> Everyone,
> I sent mailing list archival requests to Gmane, Mail-Archive, and Marc
> today. Archive creation pending.
Everyone,
http://www.mail-archive.com/leaf-git-commits@lists.sourceforge.net/
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.leaf.scm
Marc sti
On 03/05/2012 07:28 AM, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Am 05.03.2012 12:22, schrieb Andrew:
-snip-
>> Edit files that fails auto-merge and them add them into current commit
>> (git add). then just do 'git commit'.
>
> Just found my error:
>
> The new branch has to be *based on "next"* instead of master:
05.03.2012 17:28, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Am 05.03.2012 12:22, schrieb Andrew:
>> 04.03.2012 17:28, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>>> Am 04.03.2012 16:09, schrieb Andrew:
04.03.2012 16:07, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Hi;
>
> I know, how I can merge a branch with master.
>
> But how
Am 05.03.2012 12:22, schrieb Andrew:
> 04.03.2012 17:28, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>> Am 04.03.2012 16:09, schrieb Andrew:
>>> 04.03.2012 16:07, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
Hi;
I know, how I can merge a branch with master.
But how do I merge a branch with another one, "next" in my
04.03.2012 17:28, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Am 04.03.2012 16:09, schrieb Andrew:
>> 04.03.2012 16:07, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>>> Hi;
>>>
>>> I know, how I can merge a branch with master.
>>>
>>> But how do I merge a branch with another one, "next" in my case?
>>>
>>> thx kp
>> Just do 'git merge' -
Am 04.03.2012 16:09, schrieb Andrew:
> 04.03.2012 16:07, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>> Hi;
>>
>> I know, how I can merge a branch with master.
>>
>> But how do I merge a branch with another one, "next" in my case?
>>
>> thx kp
> Just do 'git merge ' - object can be branch, tag, commit, and
> your curr
04.03.2012 16:07, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Hi;
>
> I know, how I can merge a branch with master.
>
> But how do I merge a branch with another one, "next" in my case?
>
> thx kp
Just do 'git merge ' - object can be branch, tag, commit, and
your current branch will have all mods from other branch ti
On 03/04/2012 06:07 AM, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Hi;
>
> I know, how I can merge a branch with master.
>
> But how do I merge a branch with another one, "next" in my case?
KP,
I'll likely show my git ignorance with this post. Please verify my
comments/suggestions below with Andrew before you do a
Hi;
I know, how I can merge a branch with master.
But how do I merge a branch with another one, "next" in my case?
thx kp
--
Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtual
On 02/16/2012 11:30 AM, Andrew wrote:
> Git is enough simple and very powerful system. It may look like too
> difficult - but it isn't too hard to understand. Look at commit like a
> patch, and on branch like a sequence of patches - it'll be easier to
> understand git in that way.
http://gitref.or
16.02.2012 21:22, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Am 16.02.2012 20:00, schrieb Andrew:
>> 16.02.2012 20:46, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>>> Am 16.02.2012 19:00, schrieb Andrew:
16.02.2012 19:54, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Hi Andrew; hi all
>
> just to understand how we use git.
>
> I saw
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
