Am 07.12.2017 17:18 schrieb "Emil Velikov" :
On 6 December 2017 at 12:37, Daniel Martin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> if anyone would like to have a look, I've pushed my current work on
> the merged proto repo here:
> https://github.com/bartsch/xorg-proto2k/
> It's generated as is with:
> https://
On 6 December 2017 at 12:37, Daniel Martin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> if anyone would like to have a look, I've pushed my current work on
> the merged proto repo here:
> https://github.com/bartsch/xorg-proto2k/
> It's generated as is with:
> https://github.com/bartsch/proto2k-generator/
>
> I us
On 6 December 2017 at 16:23, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 06.12.2017 13:37 Daniel Martin:
>>
>> PS: Just talked to Peter, he's okay with filter-branch as it gives us
>> git-log without a struggle and references to other commits can be
>> looked up in the old repos
>
> A suggestion: you could
Hi,
06.12.2017 13:37 Daniel Martin:
PS: Just talked to Peter, he's okay with filter-branch as it gives us
git-log without a struggle and references to other commits can be
looked up in the old repos
A suggestion: you could add the old IDs into the new commit logs. This
makes it possible to sear
Hi all,
if anyone would like to have a look, I've pushed my current work on
the merged proto repo here:
https://github.com/bartsch/xorg-proto2k/
It's generated as is with:
https://github.com/bartsch/proto2k-generator/
I used git-filter-branch to:
- move files to specific directories and
-
On 30 November 2017 at 14:28, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 29 November 2017 at 13:40, Daniel Martin wrote:
>> On 28 November 2017 at 16:51, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> One reasonably easy way to fold the repositories [while preserving all
>>> the history] is via git filter-branch.
>>
>> Yes, but, filter
On 29 November 2017 at 13:40, Daniel Martin wrote:
> On 28 November 2017 at 16:51, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> One reasonably easy way to fold the repositories [while preserving all
>> the history] is via git filter-branch.
>
> Yes, but, filter-branch rewrites the history too. As Peter stated
> earlie
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 03:44:53PM +0100, Daniel Martin wrote:
> On 29 November 2017 at 15:01, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 28 November 2017 at 12:38, Daniel Martin wrote:
> >> On 27 November 2017 at 23:18, Peter Hutterer
> >> wrote:
> >>> have you looked at subtree merges? Keeps the
On 29 November 2017 at 15:52, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:44:53 +0100
> Daniel Martin wrote:
>
>> On 29 November 2017 at 15:01, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 28 November 2017 at 12:38, Daniel Martin
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 27 November 2017 at 23:18, Peter Hutterer
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:44:53 +0100
Daniel Martin wrote:
> On 29 November 2017 at 15:01, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 28 November 2017 at 12:38, Daniel Martin
> > wrote:
> >> On 27 November 2017 at 23:18, Peter Hutterer
> >> wrote:
> >>> have you looked at subtree merges? Keeps
On 29 November 2017 at 15:01, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28 November 2017 at 12:38, Daniel Martin wrote:
>> On 27 November 2017 at 23:18, Peter Hutterer
>> wrote:
>>> have you looked at subtree merges? Keeps the repo history for each merged
>>> repository and the one from the top-level re
Hi,
On 28 November 2017 at 12:38, Daniel Martin wrote:
> On 27 November 2017 at 23:18, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> have you looked at subtree merges? Keeps the repo history for each merged
>> repository and the one from the top-level repository. And it forces you to
>> merge into a directory anyway
On 28 November 2017 at 16:51, Emil Velikov wrote:
> One reasonably easy way to fold the repositories [while preserving all
> the history] is via git filter-branch.
Yes, but, filter-branch rewrites the history too. As Peter stated
earlier, this breaks commit messages referencing other commits.
>
On 28 November 2017 at 12:38, Daniel Martin wrote:
> On 27 November 2017 at 23:18, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:07:12PM +0100, Daniel Martin wrote:
>>> On 22 November 2017 at 07:45, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 10:25 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>>> >> O
On 27 November 2017 at 23:18, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:07:12PM +0100, Daniel Martin wrote:
>> On 22 November 2017 at 07:45, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 10:25 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:28:20PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:07:12PM +0100, Daniel Martin wrote:
> On 22 November 2017 at 07:45, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 10:25 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:28:20PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> >> > Your script splits each proto into a subdirectory
On 22 November 2017 at 07:45, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 10:25 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:28:20PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
>> > Your script splits each proto into a subdirectory, does it really make
>> > sense to
>> > do that, or should the final
On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 10:25 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:28:20PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Your script splits each proto into a subdirectory, does it really make
> > sense to
> > do that, or should the final proto package have everything together in the
> > root?
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:50:16PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Peter Hutterer (2017-11-21 16:25:47)
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:28:20PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > > Quoting Keith Packard (2017-11-21 12:51:24)
> > > > Adam Jackson writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Also, git://people.freedesk
Quoting Peter Hutterer (2017-11-21 16:25:47)
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:28:20PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Keith Packard (2017-11-21 12:51:24)
> > > Adam Jackson writes:
> > >
> > > > Also, git://people.freedesktop.org/~keithp/newproto appears to contain
> > > > the script used to ge
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:28:20PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> Quoting Keith Packard (2017-11-21 12:51:24)
> > Adam Jackson writes:
> >
> > > Also, git://people.freedesktop.org/~keithp/newproto appears to contain
> > > the script used to generate the merged repo.
> >
> > Right, that's probably m
Quoting Keith Packard (2017-11-21 12:51:24)
> Adam Jackson writes:
>
> > Also, git://people.freedesktop.org/~keithp/newproto appears to contain
> > the script used to generate the merged repo.
>
> Right, that's probably more useful today. The trick was to get the
> headers merged without losing
Adam Jackson writes:
> Also, git://people.freedesktop.org/~keithp/newproto appears to contain
> the script used to generate the merged repo.
Right, that's probably more useful today. The trick was to get the
headers merged without losing any of the history.
> I would be entirely in favor of mer
On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 11:54 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> Daniel Martin writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've ever wondered why are the proto headers split up into distinct
> > repos? (It takes "ages" to just copy (install) a few files with
> > autotools.)
>
> They were split as part of the great dis-a
Daniel Martin writes:
> Hi,
>
> I've ever wondered why are the proto headers split up into distinct
> repos? (It takes "ages" to just copy (install) a few files with
> autotools.)
They were split as part of the great dis-aggregation. I had a prototype
of them merged back together, but that was n
Quoting Daniel Martin (2017-11-21 01:59:42)
> Hi,
>
> I've ever wondered why are the proto headers split up into distinct
> repos? (It takes "ages" to just copy (install) a few files with
> autotools.)
>
> Dylan started to add meson support, but doing this for all protos
> sounds like a lot of co
I've been doing what I need for mesa on platforms that lack proper package/port
management (aka, windows and macos). AFAIK it should be completely possible to
merge all the protos into a single xorg-proto (or whatever color you like your
bikeshed), but no one's stepped up to take on that project.
Hi,
I've ever wondered why are the proto headers split up into distinct
repos? (It takes "ages" to just copy (install) a few files with
autotools.)
Dylan started to add meson support, but doing this for all protos
sounds like a lot of copy'n'paste to do, lots of patches . Wouldn't it
make more se
28 matches
Mail list logo
