On Tuesday 29 November 2011 23:12:02 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 November 2011 18:48:08 Graeme Russ wrote:
> >> At this point, how do you make the merge 'conflict free' without
> >> re-writing the sub-repo?
> >
> > you can't. but t
Hi Mike,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 November 2011 18:48:08 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 29 November 2011 17:57:39 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> >> Now ${upstream}/master is always the 'gold standa
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 18:48:08 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 November 2011 17:57:39 Graeme Russ wrote:
> >> Now ${upstream}/master is always the 'gold standard', so what does the
> >> conflicted sub-repo dpo with the already pub
Hi Mike,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 November 2011 17:57:39 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> 1) ${upstream}/master merges in multiple conflicting ${sub-repo}/master
>> and the order that they get pulled results in a conflict
>
> when a merge is done and a con
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 17:57:39 Graeme Russ wrote:
> 1) ${upstream}/master merges in multiple conflicting ${sub-repo}/master
> and the order that they get pulled results in a conflict
when a merge is done and a conflict is thrown up, it's up to the guy doing the
merge to resolve that co
Hi Andy, Mike,
Thanks for all your help. I've managed to clean-up the x86 repo, but I
still have a few lingering thoughts if you can spare a few more moments...
I understand why a published (i.e. pushed onto the denx server) branch
should never be altered and should, therefore, never require a fo
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 05:51:52 Graeme Russ wrote:
> However, I still get:
>
> error: refs/tags/2009.01-rc2 does not point to a valid object!
if `git tag -d 2009.01-rc2` doesn't fix things, then try:
rm .git/refs/tags/2009.01-rc2
sed -i /tags.2009.01-rc2/d .git/packed-refs
-m
On 29/11/11 16:36, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 November 2011 00:04:12 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> I think I need to do some reading up on 'rebase' versus 'merge' in git
[snip]
>>> then you'll have to do:
>>>$ git checkout master
>>>$ git rebase u-boot/master
>>>$ git p
On 29/11/11 10:02, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2011 17:31:19 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> error: refs/tags/2009.01-rc2 does not point to a valid object!
>
> this tag seems to have bled into some people's repos ... i'd suggest you punt
> it locally:
> git tag -d 2009.01-rc2
> and
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 00:04:12 Graeme Russ wrote:
> I think I need to do some reading up on 'rebase' versus 'merge' in git
rebase: rewrites the history by taking all of your local changes and placing
them on top of the commit you've specified. this ultimately produces a much
more linear a
Ignoring most of the context for the moment, I think fixing your
problem requires:
Start in your current, broken branch:
1) git branch save_broken_branch #just in case
2) git rebase -i u-boot/master
Interactive rebase will show you a long list of commits that aren't
yet in the mainline, even the
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2011 23:17:47 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> My development is done using stacked git on development branches (I'm even
>> considering using an entirely independent local git repo 'just in case')
>
> that's fine. it's
On Monday 28 November 2011 23:17:47 Graeme Russ wrote:
> My development is done using stacked git on development branches (I'm even
> considering using an entirely independent local git repo 'just in case')
that's fine. it's just a matter of how often you want to publish patches to
the wider wor
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2011 22:35:24 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > the expected behavior of downstream users is apparently to always
>> > fetch+rebase rather than fetch+merge (what
On Monday 28 November 2011 22:35:24 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the expected behavior of downstream users is apparently to always
> > fetch+rebase rather than fetch+merge (what "pull" normally does). this
> > is pretty unusual (and in most git ci
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2011 19:02:20 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> > cd Source/U-Boot/x86 (my local version of the u-boot-x86 repo)
>> > git fetch u-boot (as per the 'new' methodology of not having a seperate
>> > u-boot branch)
>> > git ch
On Monday 28 November 2011 19:02:20 Graeme Russ wrote:
> > cd Source/U-Boot/x86 (my local version of the u-boot-x86 repo)
> > git fetch u-boot (as per the 'new' methodology of not having a seperate
> > u-boot branch)
> > git checkout master
> > git rebase u-boot/master
> > git push ssh://gu-...@git
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2011 18:20:51 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Andy Fleming wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> On Monday 28 November 2011 18:05:00 Graeme Russ wrot
On Monday 28 November 2011 18:20:51 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Andy Fleming wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Monday 28 November 2011 18:05:00 Graeme Russ wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> >
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Andy Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Monday 28 November 2011 18:05:00 Graeme Russ wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> > On Monday 28 November 2011 17:31:19 Graeme Russ wrote:
>>> >>
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2011 18:05:00 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Monday 28 November 2011 17:31:19 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> >> $ git fetch u-boot
>> >> ...
>> >> $ git rebase u-boot/master
On Monday 28 November 2011 18:05:00 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 28 November 2011 17:31:19 Graeme Russ wrote:
> >> $ git fetch u-boot
> >> ...
> >> $ git rebase u-boot/master
> >> ...
> >> $ git push ssh://gu-...@git.denx.de/u-boot-x86
>
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2011 17:31:19 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> error: refs/tags/2009.01-rc2 does not point to a valid object!
>
> this tag seems to have bled into some people's repos ... i'd suggest you punt
> it locally:
> git
On Monday 28 November 2011 17:31:19 Graeme Russ wrote:
> error: refs/tags/2009.01-rc2 does not point to a valid object!
this tag seems to have bled into some people's repos ... i'd suggest you punt
it locally:
git tag -d 2009.01-rc2
and then punt it remotely:
git push :2009.01-rc
Hi All,
I've asked Wolfgang the following, but it looks like he's just too snowed
under at the moment...
Somehow I've managed to do something 'interesting' to the u-boot-x86
repository - It has duplicate patches.
He's the sequence of events leading up to the problem
$ git fetch u-boot
remote: C
25 matches
Mail list logo
