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
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:
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.
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
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 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 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 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
>
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.
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
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
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
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;
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
> 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
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
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
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 that Andrew merged next with next-experimental.
>>
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 that Andrew merged next with next-experimental.
>>> So will there be two "next" branches in the
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 that Andrew merged next with next-experimental.
>> So will there be two "next" branches in the near future, or will
>> one(next-experimental) rep
16.02.2012 19:54, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Hi Andrew; hi all
>
> just to understand how we use git.
>
> I saw that Andrew merged next with next-experimental.
> So will there be two "next" branches in the near future, or will
> one(next-experimental) replace the other(next)? And if so shouldn't we
>
Everyone note,
https://gitlog.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/git-1-6-6/
Preparing yourselves for compatibility issues in 1.7.0
In git 1.7.0, which is planned to be the release after 1.6.6,
there will be a handful of behaviour changes that will break
backward compatibility.
Also, IR
On 02/13/2012 08:58 AM, Andrew wrote:
> 12.02.2012 23:56, Erich Titl пишет:
>> Do I have to remove the origin from the remotes then?
> Yes, since it isn't associated with any remote repository, and it's
> branches aren't associated with any of local branches.
Andrew,
Thanks for jumping in. What i
12.02.2012 23:56, Erich Titl пишет:
> on 12.02.2012 15:59, Mike Noyes wrote:
>> On 02/12/2012 05:10 AM, Erich Titl wrote:
>>> Am 11.02.2012 15:14, schrieb Mike Noyes:
>> -snip-
You should be able to continue without performing any task on your end.
If this is not the case, please let me k
On 02/13/2012 07:40 AM, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Everyone,
> The Git Reference is a great place to learn about Git.
>
> Git Reference
> http://gitref.org/
>
> Sourceforge Git documentation
> http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Git
>
> Git Documentation (Books,
Everyone,
The Git Reference is a great place to learn about Git.
Git Reference
http://gitref.org/
Sourceforge Git documentation
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Git
Git Documentation (Books, Tutorials, Reference, Videos, etc.)
http
;t look right. Did Andrew have you change something?
>
> No
Erich,
Andrew and you did something when you had issues with the git structure
change from 'leaf' to 'bering-uclibc' (see message archive below). You
have both repositories in your "remotes"
Mike
at 13.02.2012 02:07, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On 02/12/2012 01:56 PM, Erich Titl wrote:
>> on 12.02.2012 15:59, Mike Noyes wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2012 05:10 AM, Erich Titl wrote:
Am 11.02.2012 15:14, schrieb Mike Noyes:
>>> -snip-
> You should be able to continue without performing any task
On 02/12/2012 01:56 PM, Erich Titl wrote:
> on 12.02.2012 15:59, Mike Noyes wrote:
>> On 02/12/2012 05:10 AM, Erich Titl wrote:
>>> Am 11.02.2012 15:14, schrieb Mike Noyes:
>> -snip-
You should be able to continue without performing any task on your end.
If this is not the case, please le
on 12.02.2012 15:59, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On 02/12/2012 05:10 AM, Erich Titl wrote:
>> Am 11.02.2012 15:14, schrieb Mike Noyes:
> -snip-
>>> You should be able to continue without performing any task on your end.
>>> If this is not the case, please let me know. Thanks.
>>
>
> > I guess it mus
On 02/12/2012 05:10 AM, Erich Titl wrote:
> Am 11.02.2012 15:14, schrieb Mike Noyes:
-snip-
>> You should be able to continue without performing any task on your end.
>> If this is not the case, please let me know. Thanks.
>
> Does the git URL not change?
Erich,
No. Instead of one CVS repository w
Am 11.02.2012 15:14, schrieb Mike Noyes:
On 02/11/2012 03:44 AM, Erich Titl wrote:
on 11.02.2012 02:51, Mike Noyes wrote:
On 02/10/2012 04:29 PM, Erich Titl wrote:
Erich,
We have three git repositories in leaf: leaf, bering-uclibc, and packages.
Erich,
You participated in this git repository
On 02/03/2012 07:03 PM, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Everyone,
> After a slight git config issue, the mailing list hook script appears
> functional. Feel free to subscribe.
>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-git-commits
> leaf-git-comm...@lists.sourceforge.net
>
> I'll add the 'leaf' and
On 02/11/2012 03:44 AM, Erich Titl wrote:
> on 11.02.2012 02:51, Mike Noyes wrote:
>> On 02/10/2012 04:29 PM, Erich Titl wrote:
Erich,
We have three git repositories in leaf: leaf, bering-uclibc, and packages.
>>
>> Erich,
>> You participated in this git repository structure change in the
on 11.02.2012 02:51, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 04:29 PM, Erich Titl wrote:
>>> Erich,
>>> We have three git repositories in leaf: leaf, bering-uclibc, and packages.
>
> Erich,
> You participated in this git repository structure change in the
> leaf-devel "git tree developments" thread las
Am 10.02.2012 17:08, schrieb Mike Noyes:
> Everyone,
> Does anyone object to me reintializing (--bare) our git 'leaf'
> repository? All of that content is in 'bering-uclibc' and 'packages'.
>
Mike;
I don't see any pb reinitilazing "leaf" - it was a mistake made in the
hurry moving from ( at tha
On 02/10/2012 04:29 PM, Erich Titl wrote:
>> Erich,
>> We have three git repositories in leaf: leaf, bering-uclibc, and packages.
Erich,
You participated in this git repository structure change in the
leaf-devel "git tree developments" thread last year. I'm just proposing
the 'leaf' repository b
Hi Mike
on 10.02.2012 21:51, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 11:44 AM, Erich Titl wrote:
>> Hi Mike
>>
..
>
> Erich,
> We have three git repositories in leaf: leaf, bering-uclibc, and packages.
IIRC leaf _IS_ BuC 4.x
Erich
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Kryptografische Unterschrift
---
On 02/10/2012 11:44 AM, Erich Titl wrote:
> Hi Mike
>
> on 10.02.2012 17:08, Mike Noyes wrote:
>> Everyone,
>> Does anyone object to me reintializing (--bare) our git 'leaf'
>> repository? All of that content is in 'bering-uclibc' and 'packages'.
>>
>
> actually I believe the leaf directory is the
Hi Mike
on 10.02.2012 17:08, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Everyone,
> Does anyone object to me reintializing (--bare) our git 'leaf'
> repository? All of that content is in 'bering-uclibc' and 'packages'.
>
actually I believe the leaf directory is the base git directory. If you
reinitialize I have no cl
On 02/03/2012 07:03 PM, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Everyone,
> After a slight git config issue, the mailing list hook script appears
> functional. Feel free to subscribe.
>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-git-commits
> leaf-git-comm...@lists.sourceforge.net
>
> I'll add the 'leaf' and
Everyone,
After a slight git config issue, the mailing list hook script appears
functional. Feel free to subscribe.
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-git-commits
leaf-git-comm...@lists.sourceforge.net
I'll add the 'leaf' and 'packages' repositories to the mailing list in a
week
On 02/03/2012 08:39 AM, Mike Noyes wrote:
> On 02/03/2012 07:00 AM, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
>> Hi;
>>
>> Anyone with an idea what may have happened with our repository?
>>
>> http://leaf.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=leaf/bering-uclibc;a=summary
>>
>> is empty and trying to connect from CLI g
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
