From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SSCxl-0006Zx-K3 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 09 May 2012 21:54:17 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q49JiPEC025581 for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 20:44:25 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 23680-08 for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 20:44:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q49Jhjs6025573 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 20:43:46 +0100 Message-ID: <1336592624.2494.68.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 20:43:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <893d8018c655f70ada731eaf5f03b178f4dfe2b3.1336535085.git.bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> <4FAA8FEF.9050702@linux.intel.com> <1336579353.5602.98.camel@phil-desktop> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net 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 19:54:17 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 12:42 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Ashfield > wrote: > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > >> 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. > > > > It's a quote from the kern-tools commit log. I could just put: 'fixes stuff', > > but that's not good either. Writing a novel isn't good either. > > > > I'm not sure why everyone is having such an issue with this, there's many > > other examples of commits like this, and everyone sits in a glass house > > in this regard. > > > > I can re-work it of course, I wrote it very late at night to fix a > > I rewrote the SRCREV update commit into something more legible. It's on > the same branch as the original pull request. Thanks, I think this is a timely reminder to everyone to think about the people who might read a commit message and try and make it meaningful to them. I've merged the revised version to master. Cheers, Richard