Ralf's Remove CVS Id Commits

Fri May 4 23:21:26 UTC 2012

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
> This CVS Id business is a mess. I'd prefer that Ralf clean-up / revert
> what he did with a single change to both the head and the 4.10 branch.
> Then we can proceed in a more friendly way.
>
> The following commands will revert all the various patches for the git
> head in a single patch.
>
> git checkout -b revert-ids 27272db3363cce157e83e484f9f89cc41fc0752c
> git revert HEAD~61 -n
> git commit -m "Ids: revert"
> git push upstream revert-ids:master
>
It might be necessary to create  patch and then apply it to a
checked-out head. I'm not sure about pushing from a checked-out
previous commit.

> See http://git.rtems.org/gedare/rtems.git/commit/?h=revert-ids
>
> A similar formula can be made for 4.10 if we like, or we could reset
> the repository to get rid of them entirely... For the 4.10 branch I
> think we can 'reset' the repository since (likely) no one has checked
> it out and started to work from where the removals took place.
> git checkout upstream/4.10 -b 4.10
> git pull
> git reset --hard f29ab47c93619c705c82d096c6d2cb85e95247ba
> git push -f
>
> That's not very nice to do but as long as no one has based any work
> off the 4.10 head since these Remove Id commits occurred then
> everything should be fine and the history will be cleaner.
>
> -Gedare
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com> wrote:
>> On 05/04/2012 11:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2012 05:07 PM, Thomas Doerfler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ralf,
>>>>
>>>> Am 04.05.2012 16:44, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/04/2012 04:10 PM, Thomas Doerfler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These changes belong together. Nobody wants this change to be done in
>>>>>> one BSP and NOT done in a different one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you actually have a look into the patches?
>>>>
>>>> Yes and no. I read some at the beginning, some in the middle and some at
>>>> the end of your two patch sequences. I saw that each patch performs
>>>> similar modifications for different directories or dir trees. I saw that
>>>> you have committed separate patches with similar changes for each BSP or
>>>> group of BSPs.
>>>
>>> Correct ...
>>>
>>>> I am sure you don't want the community to inspect each patch separately?
>>>
>>> Pardon, I am the original author of all the files and probably nobody
>>> knows these better than me. I had applied many much more intrusive
>>> patches in similar ways many times before.
>>
>> I'm the author of a lot of the source in the tree and I don't trust
>> anyone's script enough to commit the result without a review.
>>
>> I don't care who edits the damned files. The issue is that I
>> posted (1) complete patches for most of the tree and
>> (2) I asked for review.
>>
>> You ignored (1) and by "nibbling" are making my work
>> "hard". You didn't want anyone to do that to you but it
>> was OK to do that to me.
>>
>> When I ask for review on something, I think it is something
>> that needs review. I don't care who wrote it or how it
>> was generated. Why is your script any less suspect than mine?
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am surely not perfect and surely do not want exclude something might
>>> have gone wrong somewhere, but this request of yours makes me sad.
>>
>> This isn't about how you feel. This is about cooperating.
>>
>> You ignored my near work which eliminated ALL CVS Ids
>> in most of the tree. It was available for review and
>> I had specifically asked for review. If anyone has
>> reason to have their feelings hurt, it is me.  You obviously
>> think my changes were not worthy of your review time
>> and it didn't matter if you "nibbled" and caused me
>> extra work.
>>
>> Somehow your changes were above needing to be
>> reviewed while mine were unworthy of your review.
>>
>>
>>>> I assume that the goal/intention of each patch is quite silimar. Am I
>>>> right here? Or do they have different goals/intentions?
>>>
>>> ... these changes were script-generated ,. the spots changed were
>>> trivial to parse comment blocks.
>>
>> So were mine. What makes your "nibbling" so superior that
>> it could conflict with my complete work which was available
>> for review?
>>
>>>>>> Maybe you should get familiar with the idea that git does apply patches
>>>>>> in an atomic way and not in a uncorrelated file-by-file basis as CVS
>>>>>> does.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mashing up of the commit messages wasn't done by CVS. It was the
>>>>> tool being used to produce the commit messages, which was polling at 1
>>>>> hour intervals and glueing together independent commits.
>>>>
>>>> Why did you let it glue independent commits?
>>>
>>> I did not do anything - This was the tool somebody (I think it was
>>> Chris) had installed on rtems.org to send CVS commit logs.
>>
>> That is an operator error on your part.  That's why I did the
>> work on a git branch on my personal repo. It could be reviewed,
>> the patches squashed into a single "automatic" and a
>> single "manual" if that was what the community wanted.
>>
>> The review was for both "correctness" and to ensure
>> that the community was happy with the edits.
>>
>>> Ralf
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtems-devel mailing list
>>> rtems-devel at rtems.org
>>> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research&   Development
>> joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
>> Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
>>    Support Available             (256) 722-9985
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtems-devel mailing list
>> rtems-devel at rtems.org
>> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel