From: Andrew Kohlsmith (lists) <aklists@mi...> - 2008-03-23 18:01:15
I've pulled CVS HEAD and applied (cp -a) it to a clean 2.6.24 tree, but it
seems that starlet.h was not committed. Is this intentional?
Is there a better (cleaner) way of developing against CVS HEAD aside from
copying the tree on top of a clean kernel?
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:59 -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith (lists) wrote:
> Is there a better (cleaner) way of developing against CVS HEAD aside from
> copying the tree on top of a clean kernel?
I've always run a for each on the checkout (something like the
for i in `find . ! -type d`
diff -Nau ../linux/$i $i
done > gc-linux.patch
I've then manage apply the patch to the pristine tree with quilt. This
is quite a good working model if you don't have CVS write access since
you just keep the master patch at the bottom of the stack and add you
own changes as seperate patches higher up the stack (ready to be posted
to the list).
I assume the 'real' developers may have a more sophisticated approach
that makes CVS commits easy as well.
Daniel Thompson <daniel@...>
Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.