From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SS9V2-0003OD-C4 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 09 May 2012 18:12:24 +0200 Received: from elite.brightsigndigital.co.uk ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SS9LV-0005CA-J3 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 09 May 2012 18:02:33 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 17:02:32 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <893d8018c655f70ada731eaf5f03b178f4dfe2b3.1336535085.git.bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> <4FAA8FEF.9050702@linux.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.2- Message-ID: <1336579353.5602.98.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kern-tools: checkpoint restoration for reset branches X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 16:12:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 11:48 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Darren Hart 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.