linuxconsole-dev

CVS Tags

[Paul M. <pm...@mv...>]

Hello,

I was just trying to out ruby against an older kernel, when I realized
that we don't keep proper tags for kernel versions.. I've since gone
through and tagged everything. Available tags are:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
File: Makefile         	Status: Up-to-date

   Working revision:	1.40
   Repository revision:	1.40	/cvsroot/linuxconsole/ruby/linux/Makefile,v
   Sticky Tag:		(none)
   Sticky Date:		(none)
   Sticky Options:	(none)

   Existing Tags:
	linux_2_4_13             	(revision: 1.39)
	linux_2_4_12             	(revision: 1.38)
	linux_2_4_10             	(revision: 1.37)
	linux_2_4_9              	(revision: 1.36)
	linux_2_4_8              	(revision: 1.34)
	linux_2_4_7              	(revision: 1.31)
	linux_2_4_6              	(revision: 1.30)
	linux_2_4_5              	(revision: 1.26)
	linux_2_4_4              	(revision: 1.25)
	linux_2_4_3              	(revision: 1.24)
	linux_2_4_2              	(revision: 1.23)
	linux_2_4_1              	(revision: 1.22)
	linux_2_4_0              	(revision: 1.21)
	linux_2_4_0_test12       	(revision: 1.20)
	linux_2_4_0_test11       	(revision: 1.19)
	linux_2_4_0_test10       	(revision: 1.18)
	linux_2_4_0_test9        	(revision: 1.17)
	linux_2_4_0_test8        	(revision: 1.16)
	linux_2_4_0_test7        	(revision: 1.15)
	linux_2_4_0_test6        	(revision: 1.14)
	linux_2_4_0_test5        	(revision: 1.13)
	linux_2_4_0_test4        	(revision: 1.12)
	linux_2_4_0_test4_pre3   	(revision: 1.12)
	linux_2_4_0_test2        	(revision: 1.10)
	linux_2_4_0_test2_pre2   	(revision: 1.9)
	linux_2_4_0_test2_pre1   	(revision: 1.8)
	linux_2_4_0_test1        	(revision: 1.8)
	linux_2_3_99_pre9        	(revision: 1.6)
	linux_2_3_99_pre6        	(revision: 1.5)
	linux_2_3_99_pre5        	(revision: 1.4)
	linux_2_3_99_pre4        	(revision: 1.3)
	linux_2_3_99_pre3        	(revision: 1.2)
	iforce-split             	(branch: 1.37.2)

A snapshot of ruby for kernel version can be retrieved via
cvs co -r tag ruby.

Regards,

--=20
Paul Mundt <pm...@mv...>
MontaVista Software, Inc.

Re: CVS Tags

[James S. <jsi...@tr...>]

> Hello,

> I was just trying to out ruby against an older kernel, when I realized
> that we don't keep proper tags for kernel versions.. I've since gone
> through and tagged everything. Available tags are:

Oops. I forgot to tag them especially since I skipped 2.4.11. Don't use
2.4.11. It is a bad tree from Linus. I just tagged the current tree:

linux_2_4_14

I tets it and it works. Now to break things again.
 

Re: CVS Tags

[M. R. B. <mr...@0x...>]

* James Simmons <jsi...@tr...> on Tue, Nov 13, 2001:

>=20
> Oops. I forgot to tag them especially since I skipped 2.4.11. Don't use
> 2.4.11. It is a bad tree from Linus. I just tagged the current tree:
>=20
> linux_2_4_14
>=20

Erm, you're not supposed to tag the current tree, you tag it as soon as
you're prepared to bump up to the next kernel release.  In this example,
you wouldn't tag the tree as 2_4_14 until you were ready to make the
changes to sync the tree to 2.4.15.

Because of the AGAINST-2.4.x file, it's assumed that CVS HEAD always points
to that version.

> I tets it and it works. Now to break things again.
> =20

I'm about to remove the linux_2_4_14 tag (it shouldn't break anything).

M. R.

Re: CVS Tags

[James S. <jsi...@tr...>]

> Erm, you're not supposed to tag the current tree, you tag it as soon as
> you're prepared to bump up to the next kernel release.  In this example,
> you wouldn't tag the tree as 2_4_14 until you were ready to make the
> changes to sync the tree to 2.4.15.
> 
> Because of the AGAINST-2.4.x file, it's assumed that CVS HEAD always points
> to that version.

So this is the method people want. Actually all the tags I done where done
right after I synced and tested the tree.

Re: CVS Tags

[M. R. B. <mr...@0x...>]

* James Simmons <jsi...@tr...> on Wed, Nov 14, 2001:

>=20
> So this is the method people want. Actually all the tags I done where done
> right after I synced and tested the tree.
>=20

Well, this is the method Paul turned me onto.  I used to do it they way you
were before he showed me why tagging *before* the sync made more sense than
tagging after it.  If this goes against your policy, then we can do it the
other way...

It just makes more sense this way since when you pull a version by tag, you
not only get exactly what it was when you synced to that version, you also
get any local changes that may or may not have been sent back to Linus (or
whomever - if it's a drop-in against a drop-in :P).

Does this sound good to you?

M. R.

Re: CVS Tags

[James S. <jsi...@tr...>]

> Well, this is the method Paul turned me onto.  I used to do it they way you
> were before he showed me why tagging *before* the sync made more sense than
> tagging after it.  If this goes against your policy, then we can do it the
> other way...
>
> It just makes more sense this way since when you pull a version by tag, you
> not only get exactly what it was when you synced to that version, you also
> get any local changes that may or may not have been sent back to Linus (or
> whomever - if it's a drop-in against a drop-in :P).
>
> Does this sound good to you?

yes. So we will tag just before a sync up then.