On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Phil Blundell <ph...@gnu.org> wrote: >> 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. > > It's a quote from the kern-tools commit log. I could just put: 'fixes stuff', > but that's not good either. Writing a novel isn't good either. > > I'm not sure why everyone is having such an issue with this, there's many > other examples of commits like this, and everyone sits in a glass house > in this regard. > > I can re-work it of course, I wrote it very late at night to fix a
I rewrote the SRCREV update commit into something more legible. It's on the same branch as the original pull request. Cheers, Bruce > fairly blocking > bug, so everyone cutting a little bit of slack would be appreciated. > > Cheers, > > Bruce > >> >> p. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > > -- > "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await > thee at its end" -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
