On 09.10.2009 17:00, Rafaël Carré wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:33:09 +0200
> mailer_at_svn.rockbox.org wrote:
>> Date: 2009-10-09 14:33:09 +0200 (Fri, 09 Oct 2009)
>> New Revision: 23039
>> Log Message:
>> Remove PP bootloader v6 tag and mkamsboot 1.1 tags (going to be
> The reason I chose to use trunk is to not have to backport all the
> changes that happened in trunk since then.
> That includes : removal of copyright notice and various changes to
> Since these changes do not critically affect mkamsboot, there's no
> reason to tag mkamsboot from a branch.
> And of course I tested mkamsboot myself before releasing it.
I saw no notice of that. I don't know what platforms you tested it on.
(nor that you tested at all). I didn't know you already built binaries also.
> Note that the binaries I built are already available on
> (even if the server still says 403)
> mkamsboot v1.1 really is what I built off this particular revision,
> with APPVERSION defined to 1.1; a user who would build mkamsboot from
> this checkout would read mkamsboot vrXXXXX, because it's not what I
> built and labeled v1.1
What did you do to make it read v1.1? Again, I saw no notice of that, I
assumed it would show rXXXXX since that's what the trunk code does.
> If we really need binaries built from trunk to be versioned, there are
> other possibilities than using branches.
> We won't keep a branch opened forever for future mkamsboot releases,
> all the code committed to trunk will be tested and reviewed (by me at
Well, my plan was to tag 1.1 off the branch, and then delete it. Then
have 1.2 tagged from another branch (or trunk if we agree on).
1.1RC is based off the branch too.
> Please remove the mkamsboot tag you made from branch and re tag
> mkamsboot v1.1 from trunk.
It is already removed.
> Last but not least, please next time do bring the issue on the mailing
> list before reverting a commit/tag without the opinion of the committer.
> I feel very bad about you reverting my work without asking me first.
Same feeling here. mkamsboot 1.1RC was based off the branch (which
contains safe code), 1.1 is not. You didn't explain it anywhere. It
rather looked like you would follow linuxstb who said " I never liked
that branch, so would suggest just using trunk.".
You just made a release without waiting for opinions of other AMS port
guys. Your lack of conversation confused me much.
But I didn't behave much better, that's true, I was a bit bitter about it.
We can avoid this if we're a bit more patient about releasing *very*
critical tools. I don't want to "just release" tools that can brick
hardware without having a talk with some involved guys about it.
Received on 2009-10-09