Re: [Xen-devel] seabios.git branch state

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 26.06.13 at 19:02, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 12:47 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 25.06.13 at 12:29, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 10:00 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> for xen-unstable so far I have been tracking the xen-unstable
>> >> branch, yet this has been lagging behind 1.7.1-stable-xen for a
>> >> couple of weeks. What are the intentions here?
>> > 
>> > I would recommend that you instead track the
>> > Config.mk:SEABIOS_UPSTREAM_TAG variable.
>> > 
>> > I'm not sure what the best strategy here is, it seems like at some point
>> > I have ended up only pushing to the X.Y.Z-xen-stable branches rather
>> > than the xen-unstable branch. This probably makes sense since otherwise
>> > the xen-unstable branch would either need to be rebasing (for new
>> > upstream releases/stable branches) or have a complicated remerging
>> > strategy which I don't really want to get into.
>> > 
>> > Perhaps I should just nuke the xen-unstable branch? I could switch to
>> > X.Y.Z-{xen-unstable,xen-A.B} branches but given that our releases
>> > reference particular commits/tags via SEABIOS_UPSTREAM_TAG I'm not sure
>> > that would be worthwhile.
>> 
>> I think it would - the way the build process works when done
>> entirely from the root of the tree doesn't mean everyone will or
>> has to do it this way too.
> 
> So how about, where X.Y.Z is the seabios version and A.B is the Xen
> version or "master":
> X.Y.Z-stable/xen-A.B 
> X.Y.Z-stable/xen-master
> ?

That would sound reasonable, but ...

> (NB X.Y.Z-stable is the upstream branch name). Does that work for you or
> do you also want a (necessarily rebasing) "rebasing/xen-A.B" branch
> which points to the current X.Y.Z-stable/xen-A.B? Bear in mind that's
> more work for me (only small, but the issue is more that I am likely to
> forget because seabios updates are rare).

... afaic I adjusted my script already, so if it's only me asking, you
can do whatever suits you best (including keeping things as they
are, albeit perhaps you'd want to indeed kill the useless/confusing
master branch.

> Do we need to create X.Y.Z-stable/xen-A.B as part of the release process
> or is on the first SeaBIOS push to a stable branch sufficient? I'm not
> sure how many SeaBIOS patches there will be...

If we do, then I think we should create it as port of the release
process. But as said - I think keeping the current scheme less the
master branch would be fine too (allowing, if it so happens, to
have a branch shared across releases).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel