From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from buzzloop.caiaq.de ([212.112.241.133]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1NKC0W-000346-IV for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:34:45 +0000 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:34:35 +0800 From: Daniel Mack To: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: New mtd-utils release? Message-ID: <20091214143435.GD28375@buzzloop.caiaq.de> References: <20091214121439.GC28375@buzzloop.caiaq.de> <1260795633.11112.49.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1260795633.11112.49.camel@localhost> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 03:00:33PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:14 +0800, Daniel Mack wrote: > > we're building mtd-utils with buildroot, and as we need a recent version > > of it to get the ubi features, we currently check out a git snapshot as > > tarball. Last week, for some reason the SHA1 ID we used (e783e75e0) > > disappeared from the repository. (Just out of curiosity: what happened? > > Was the tree rebased or filtered?). > > Dunno, but it must be me how made this crew-up, sorry. I cannot say > exactly how it happened, but it was non-intentional. Probably pushed one > patch version, then later amended it, and pushed it with --force. This > should never be done, sorry. No big thing, I was just wondering. Probably the commit was dead (ie, not lined-up with an exposed head) for a longer time and just got vacuumed last week, dunno. > > However, this approach is somewhat hackish anyway, and we would much > > more like to check out a version that is officially tagged. > > OK, I can tag them at the beginning of the next year. I'm having > holydays in 10 min. > > > Seeing the > > last tag has been done ~17 month ago, I wonder whether there is any > > change to get a new one soon? > > We usually use the master branch. And there is simply no one who cares > about tags. But I can do this. You'll get a new tag when I come back > from holydays, unless someone else tag it earlier. Great, thank you. The background of my question was also whether there is a version which is reliable, in terms of representing a stable set of features, defining a larger merge of new features and the like, so it deserves the term 'release' :) Not saying that any of the snapshops caused any trouble so far, it would just feel better to check out something that has been tagged by the maintainers. Thanks, Daniel