On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 11:48 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 05/08/2012 08:48 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > >> Updating the SRCREV to pickup the following fix: > >> > >> createme: fix checkpoint restoration for reset branches > >> > >> The meta branch can optionally be merged out to BSP branches. This > >> removes > >> the need to restore the checkpoint when working with the tree. The way > >> it detects the merge is by checking to see how many branches contain > >> the > >> meta data. If there's more than one, the branch was was merged out. > >> > >> Unless you are a BSP that isn't tracking the latest meta, and you get > >> meta and meta-orig created. That's two branches and the code opts to > >> not > >> restore the checkpoint, which leads to configuration errors. > >> > >> The fix is simple. We allow for 2 or less branches with meta, and will > >> still restore the checkpoint. Three and up, we won't. > >> > > > > Uhm... am I the only one for whom this language is really confusing? > > "merged out" ? > > "restore the checkpoint" ? > > I could be more verbose, but it's like reading a kernel -mm commit. I > don't grok everything they write, but they aren't writing it for me as a > -mm newbie.
So, who exactly is the target audience for the above text? I'm not sure that "really confusing" does it justice: from my point of view (though admittedly I am very far from being an eleet k3rn3l h4x0r) it just looks like gibberish. If it's going into oe-core then I would have hoped that the checkin comment would be intelligible to oe-core users at large, not just those who are schooled in the mysterious ways of some particular subgroup. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
