v1.3.1 tag is not present in any branch

v1.3.1 tag is not present in any branch

[Vagrant Cascadian]

As seen on IRC and github issues:

  https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/issues/316

There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes
it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.

  https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1

  This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.

Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!

live well,
  vagrant
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/opensbi/attachments/20230721/b0388162/attachment.sig>

v1.3.1 tag is not present in any branch

[Anup Patel]

On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 6:38?AM Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:
>
> As seen on IRC and github issues:
>
>   https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/issues/316
>
> There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes
> it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
>
>   https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1
>
>   This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
>
> Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!

I had pushed release-1.3.1 branch two days back since few
folks (including yourself) reported this issue.

This is the first time that we did an intermediate release so
going forward I will ensure that a separate branch in pushed
for an intermediate releases whenever intermediate release
has a different commit history compared to master branch.

Thanks,
Anup


>
> live well,
>   vagrant
> --
> opensbi mailing list
> opensbi at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi

v1.3.1 tag is not present in any branch

[Jessica Clarke]

On 24 Jul 2023, at 04:47, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 6:38?AM Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:
>> 
>> As seen on IRC and github issues:
>> 
>>  https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/issues/316
>> 
>> There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes
>> it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
>> 
>>  https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1
>> 
>>  This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
>> 
>> Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!
> 
> I had pushed release-1.3.1 branch two days back since few
> folks (including yourself) reported this issue.

What happens if there?s then a 1.3.2?

1.3.1 is overly narrow. Good for tags but not branches.
Something like 1.3.x as suggested is more forward-thinking.

Jess

> This is the first time that we did an intermediate release so
> going forward I will ensure that a separate branch in pushed
> for an intermediate releases whenever intermediate release
> has a different commit history compared to master branch.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anup
> 
> 
>> 
>> live well,
>>  vagrant
>> --
>> opensbi mailing list
>> opensbi at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi
> 
> -- 
> opensbi mailing list
> opensbi at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi

v1.3.1 tag is not present in any branch

[Anup Patel]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:24?AM Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com> wrote:
>
> On 24 Jul 2023, at 04:47, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 6:38?AM Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> As seen on IRC and github issues:
> >>
> >>  https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/issues/316
> >>
> >> There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes
> >> it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
> >>
> >>  https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1
> >>
> >>  This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
> >>
> >> Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!
> >
> > I had pushed release-1.3.1 branch two days back since few
> > folks (including yourself) reported this issue.
>
> What happens if there?s then a 1.3.2?

If the commit history of 1.3.2 differs from the master branch then
we will have to create release-1.3.2 branch for 1.3.2 as well.

>
> 1.3.1 is overly narrow. Good for tags but not branches.
> Something like 1.3.x as suggested is more forward-thinking.

I agree and that's why I had only created a tag but it seems
not everyone prefers git fetch to get latest tags.

Regards,
Anup

>
> Jess
>
> > This is the first time that we did an intermediate release so
> > going forward I will ensure that a separate branch in pushed
> > for an intermediate releases whenever intermediate release
> > has a different commit history compared to master branch.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anup
> >
> >
> >>
> >> live well,
> >>  vagrant
> >> --
> >> opensbi mailing list
> >> opensbi at lists.infradead.org
> >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi
> >
> > --
> > opensbi mailing list
> > opensbi at lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi
>

v1.3.1 tag is not present in any branch

[Jessica Clarke]

On 24 Jul 2023, at 05:41, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:24?AM Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 24 Jul 2023, at 04:47, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 6:38?AM Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> As seen on IRC and github issues:
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/issues/316
>>>> 
>>>> There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes
>>>> it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1
>>>> 
>>>> This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
>>>> 
>>>> Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!
>>> 
>>> I had pushed release-1.3.1 branch two days back since few
>>> folks (including yourself) reported this issue.
>> 
>> What happens if there?s then a 1.3.2?
> 
> If the commit history of 1.3.2 differs from the master branch then
> we will have to create release-1.3.2 branch for 1.3.2 as well.

If 1.3.2 is based off master not 1.3.1 then that?s some very misleading
versioning. I would seriously hope that 1.3.2 is 1.3.1 + patches, both
content-wise and history-wise, and thus it belongs in a 1.3.x branch.

>> 1.3.1 is overly narrow. Good for tags but not branches.
>> Something like 1.3.x as suggested is more forward-thinking.
> 
> I agree and that's why I had only created a tag but it seems
> not everyone prefers git fetch to get latest tags.

So why did you choose to create release-1.3.1 rather than release-1.3.x
as was originally suggested?

Jess

> Regards,
> Anup
> 
>> 
>> Jess
>> 
>>> This is the first time that we did an intermediate release so
>>> going forward I will ensure that a separate branch in pushed
>>> for an intermediate releases whenever intermediate release
>>> has a different commit history compared to master branch.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Anup
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> live well,
>>>> vagrant
>>>> --
>>>> opensbi mailing list
>>>> opensbi at lists.infradead.org
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi
>>> 
>>> --
>>> opensbi mailing list
>>> opensbi at lists.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi

v1.3.1 tag is not present in any branch

[Anup Patel]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:24?AM Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com> wrote:
>
> On 24 Jul 2023, at 05:41, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:24?AM Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 24 Jul 2023, at 04:47, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 6:38?AM Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> As seen on IRC and github issues:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/issues/316
> >>>>
> >>>> There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes
> >>>> it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1
> >>>>
> >>>> This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!
> >>>
> >>> I had pushed release-1.3.1 branch two days back since few
> >>> folks (including yourself) reported this issue.
> >>
> >> What happens if there?s then a 1.3.2?
> >
> > If the commit history of 1.3.2 differs from the master branch then
> > we will have to create release-1.3.2 branch for 1.3.2 as well.
>
> If 1.3.2 is based off master not 1.3.1 then that?s some very misleading
> versioning. I would seriously hope that 1.3.2 is 1.3.1 + patches, both
> content-wise and history-wise, and thus it belongs in a 1.3.x branch.

Yes, if 1.3.2 happens then it will be based on 1.3.1.

>
> >> 1.3.1 is overly narrow. Good for tags but not branches.
> >> Something like 1.3.x as suggested is more forward-thinking.
> >
> > I agree and that's why I had only created a tag but it seems
> > not everyone prefers git fetch to get latest tags.
>
> So why did you choose to create release-1.3.1 rather than release-1.3.x
> as was originally suggested?

It is very unlikely that we have more 1.3.x intermediate releases. I
certainly don't mind using release-1.3.x as the branch name so I
have renamed it.

Regards,
Anup

>
> Jess
>
> > Regards,
> > Anup
> >
> >>
> >> Jess
> >>
> >>> This is the first time that we did an intermediate release so
> >>> going forward I will ensure that a separate branch in pushed
> >>> for an intermediate releases whenever intermediate release
> >>> has a different commit history compared to master branch.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Anup
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> live well,
> >>>> vagrant
> >>>> --
> >>>> opensbi mailing list
> >>>> opensbi at lists.infradead.org
> >>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> opensbi mailing list
> >>> opensbi at lists.infradead.org
> >>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi
>
>