Thread: [SSI-devel] Debian/FC merge tags
Brought to you by:
brucewalker,
rogertsang
From: John H. <john@Calva.COM> - 2007-01-04 15:12:39
|
MERGE-FC-DB (changes made to Debian that need merging into FC) is mostly uninteresting, the only real stuff is: 1. the missing modifications to am-utils. 2. A big "cleanup" from gopalak to portmap - mostly sticking #ifdef CONFIG_SSI round all the SSI specific stuff. 3. Small bugfixes to top & ps 4. Aneesh made a change to mount (moving the check for UUID/LABEL/drbd from mount.c to mntent.c, it claims to fix a bug Is it ok if I go ahead and: 1. merge the am-utils, procps and mount changes to the FC version. 2. Do something about portmap, which seems to have diverged in many uninteresting ways. (mostly make the Debian version look more like the Fedora one). 3. move the MERGE-FC-DB tag Here are the files changed between MERGE-FC-DB and OPENSSI-DEBIAN: Index: am-utils/amd/amd.c Index: am-utils/amd/amd.h Index: am-utils/amd/nfs_prot_svc.c Lost revision from roopa_prabhu Index: portmap/Makefile Index: portmap/pmap_set.c Index: portmap/portmap.c "2005-03-29 12:45:38 +0000; author: gopalak guarded openssi specific changes under CONFIG_SSI for better maintainabilit" Index: procps/top.c Bugfix, needs merge (use std_err instead of fprintf (stderr)) Index: procps/proc/readproc.c Bugfix, needs merge Index: sysvinit/src/shutdown.c Already merged. Index: util-linux/mount/mntent.c Index: util-linux/mount/mount.c Check for UUID/LABEL/drdb on chard was moved from mount.c to mntent.c "util-linux (2.12-10.ssi4) unstable; urgency=low * mount bug fix -- Aneesh Kumar K.V <ane...@gm...> Wed, 25 May 2005 17:59:34 +0530" |
From: Brian J. W. <Bri...@hp...> - 2007-01-04 16:20:13
|
John Hughes wrote: > MERGE-FC-DB (changes made to Debian that need merging into FC) is mostly > uninteresting, the only real stuff is: > > 1. the missing modifications to am-utils. > 2. A big "cleanup" from gopalak to portmap - mostly sticking #ifdef > CONFIG_SSI round all the SSI specific stuff. > 3. Small bugfixes to top & ps > 4. Aneesh made a change to mount (moving the check for > UUID/LABEL/drbd from mount.c to mntent.c, it claims to fix a bug > > Is it ok if I go ahead and: > > 1. merge the am-utils, procps and mount changes to the FC version. When you commit these changes to the OPENSSI-FC branch, you'll see them when you diff MERGE-DB-FC and the top of OPENSSI-FC (assuming you haven't already merged FC stuff to DEBIAN). Since the Debian changes you are merging are for just a few packages, you could check to see whether just they have anything on the FC side that needs to be merged to Debian. If so, go ahead and do it. Then when you checkin the above Debian stuff to the FC branch, you can update the MERGE-DB-FC tag for these select packages (cd into each package directory, and run `cvs tag ...`). Later you can merge the FC stuff from the remaining packages to Debian. > 2. Do something about portmap, which seems to have diverged in many > uninteresting ways. > (mostly make the Debian version look more like the Fedora one). > 3. move the MERGE-FC-DB tag Don't forget to move this tag again when you merge everything from FC to Debian. Hope this helps, Brian |
From: John H. <john@Calva.COM> - 2007-01-04 16:55:02
|
Brian J. Watson wrote: > John Hughes wrote: > >> MERGE-FC-DB (changes made to Debian that need merging into FC) is mostly >> uninteresting, the only real stuff is: >> >> 1. the missing modifications to am-utils. >> 2. A big "cleanup" from gopalak to portmap - mostly sticking #ifdef >> CONFIG_SSI round all the SSI specific stuff. >> 3. Small bugfixes to top & ps >> 4. Aneesh made a change to mount (moving the check for >> UUID/LABEL/drbd from mount.c to mntent.c, it claims to fix a bug >> >> Is it ok if I go ahead and: >> >> 1. merge the am-utils, procps and mount changes to the FC version. >> > > When you commit these changes to the OPENSSI-FC branch, you'll see them > when you diff MERGE-DB-FC and the top of OPENSSI-FC (assuming you > haven't already merged FC stuff to DEBIAN). > Not much of a problem as MERGE-DB-FC predates the import of a bunch of Fedora versions, I.E. looking at a diff of MERGE-DB-FC vs OPENSSI-FC is pretty much useless. $ cvs diff -rMERGE-DB-FC -rOPENSSI-FC 2>/dev/null | wc -l 80846 > Since the Debian changes you are merging are for just a few packages, > you could check to see whether just they have anything on the FC side > that needs to be merged to Debian. If so, go ahead and do it. Then when > you checkin the above Debian stuff to the FC branch, you can update the > MERGE-DB-FC tag for these select packages (cd into each package > directory, and run `cvs tag ...`). > > Later you can merge the FC stuff from the remaining packages to Debian. > > >> 2. Do something about portmap, which seems to have diverged in many >> uninteresting ways. >> (mostly make the Debian version look more like the Fedora one). >> 3. move the MERGE-FC-DB tag >> > > Don't forget to move this tag again when you merge everything from FC to > Debian. > Ok. |
From: Roger T. <rog...@gm...> - 2007-01-04 20:22:39
|
Hi, One more thing before anybody commit any changes for this merge is please add CVS tags "before" and "after" so it's easier to diff what happened (or go back). Thanks! Roger On 1/4/07, Brian J. Watson <Bri...@hp...> wrote: > John Hughes wrote: > > Not much of a problem as MERGE-DB-FC predates the import of a bunch of > > Fedora versions, I.E. looking at a diff of MERGE-DB-FC vs OPENSSI-FC is > > pretty much useless. > > > > $ cvs diff -rMERGE-DB-FC -rOPENSSI-FC 2>/dev/null | wc -l > > 80846 > > That's unfortunate. This probably only happened in a few of the FC > packages. The remaining packages (in particular openssi-tools) probably > still have meaningful diffs between MERGE-DB-FC and OPENSSI-FC. > > Brian > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > ssic-linux-devel mailing list > ssi...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ssic-linux-devel > |
From: Brian J. W. <Bri...@hp...> - 2007-01-04 20:48:22
|
Good idea, Roger. John, since the meaning of tags like these can get lost over time, a good tag name should probably have a brief description of "what" it's before and after (e.g., SYNCING-DB2FC), as well as "when" (e.g., a datestamp like 20070104). For example, BEFORE-SYNCING-DB2FC-20070104 and AFTER-SYNCING-DB2FC-20070104 would be good tags. These are just suggestions. Feel free to choose what you think works best. Brian Roger Tsang wrote: > Hi, > > One more thing before anybody commit any changes for this merge is > please add CVS tags "before" and "after" so it's easier to diff what > happened (or go back). Thanks! > > Roger > > On 1/4/07, Brian J. Watson <Bri...@hp...> wrote: >> John Hughes wrote: >> > Not much of a problem as MERGE-DB-FC predates the import of a bunch of >> > Fedora versions, I.E. looking at a diff of MERGE-DB-FC vs OPENSSI-FC is >> > pretty much useless. >> > >> > $ cvs diff -rMERGE-DB-FC -rOPENSSI-FC 2>/dev/null | wc -l >> > 80846 >> >> That's unfortunate. This probably only happened in a few of the FC >> packages. The remaining packages (in particular openssi-tools) probably >> still have meaningful diffs between MERGE-DB-FC and OPENSSI-FC. >> >> Brian >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to >> share your >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >> _______________________________________________ >> ssic-linux-devel mailing list >> ssi...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ssic-linux-devel >> > > |
From: John H. <john@Calva.COM> - 2007-01-04 22:06:13
|
Roger Tsang wrote: > Hi, > > One more thing before anybody commit any changes for this merge is > please add CVS tags "before" and "after" so it's easier to diff what > happened (or go back). Thanks! Yup, that's an extra good idea. |
From: Brian J. W. <Bri...@hp...> - 2007-01-04 17:33:48
|
John Hughes wrote: > Not much of a problem as MERGE-DB-FC predates the import of a bunch of > Fedora versions, I.E. looking at a diff of MERGE-DB-FC vs OPENSSI-FC is > pretty much useless. > > $ cvs diff -rMERGE-DB-FC -rOPENSSI-FC 2>/dev/null | wc -l > 80846 That's unfortunate. This probably only happened in a few of the FC packages. The remaining packages (in particular openssi-tools) probably still have meaningful diffs between MERGE-DB-FC and OPENSSI-FC. Brian |
From: Brian J. W. <Bri...@hp...> - 2007-01-04 22:34:25
|
Brian J. Watson wrote: > John Hughes wrote: >> Not much of a problem as MERGE-DB-FC predates the import of a bunch of >> Fedora versions, I.E. looking at a diff of MERGE-DB-FC vs OPENSSI-FC is >> pretty much useless. >> >> $ cvs diff -rMERGE-DB-FC -rOPENSSI-FC 2>/dev/null | wc -l >> 80846 > > That's unfortunate. This probably only happened in a few of the FC > packages. The remaining packages (in particular openssi-tools) probably > still have meaningful diffs between MERGE-DB-FC and OPENSSI-FC. Bad example. It looks like openssi-tools is one of the "common" packages that's always the same on all distro branches. No merging of openssi-tools is needed. Brian |