Hi Tom, On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:09:35PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> Dear Tom Rini, >> >> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 06:53:19PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > > Dear Joe Hershberger, >> > > >> > > [...] >> > > >> > > > While you're touching all these files, why not replace the >> > > > __u_boot_cmd* implementation with this as well. There's no need to >> > > > leave a special case in there as well is there? >> > > >> > > Not in the first stab, it can be indeed done later, but now I'd like to >> > > avoid breakage. Besides, replacing u_boot_cmd would break bisectability, >> > > I want to preserve it and rather apply more patches slowly than less >> > > patches recklessly. >> > >> > Agreed. We need to work hard to make sure we do lots of incremental >> > steps here to make sure breakage can be bisected. >> >> +1 (actually +inf.) >> >> > Making use of the >> > 'exec' step in git rebase is very helpful for making sure this is the >> > case too, btw. >> >> exec step ? > > Yes, in 'git rebase -i' you can insert exec lines after each commit such > as: > pick 12345 Commit 1 > exec script-that-runs-MAKEALL.sh > pick 6789a Commit 2 > exec script-that-runs-MAKEALL.sh > > I use my MAKEALL wrapper (http://pastebin.com/fNhG4iCd but I've updated > a bit more since I uploaded that) and --log `git rev-parse --short HEAD` > so I can see what's gone on for every step in a series.
That's interesting. I've been using git-test-sequence for a similar purpose. It doesn't require the exec steps to be added manually, though. http://dustin.github.com/2010/03/28/git-test-sequence.html -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
