On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 12:42 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > 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.
Thanks, I think this is a timely reminder to everyone to think about the people who might read a commit message and try and make it meaningful to them. I've merged the revised version to master. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
