Re: [PATCH 1/1] kern-tools: checkpoint restoration for reset branches

[Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>]

On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 11:48 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@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.