|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: kugel: r23039 - tagsRe: kugel: r23039 - tags
From: Rafaël Carré <rafael.carre_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:40:30 +0200 On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:22:57 +0200 Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.HTW-Berlin.de> wrote: > 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 > >> retagged). > >> > >> Removed: > >> tags/bootloader-pp-v6_no-samsung/ > >> tags/mkamsboot_1.1/ > >> > > > > 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 > > Makefile. > > > > 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. I do not think I had to justify myself on those points. > > Note that the binaries I built are already available on > > http://download.rockbox.org/bootloader/sandisk-sansa/mkamsboot-1.1/ > > (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. I edited Makefile > > 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 least) > > > > 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). I wasn't aware of a release plan for 1.1 after 1.1RC was made. > 1.1RC is based off the branch too. right > > Please remove the mkamsboot tag you made from branch and re tag > > mkamsboot v1.1 from trunk. > > > > > > It is already removed. Will you tag mkamsboot_1.1 again from trunk ? > > > > > 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. trunk contains safe code as well. > 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.". What did I have to explain ? In the irc logs just before this quote from linuxstb, I say: "should I still use the bootloader_ams_pp branch for building new mkamsboot binaries ? Then I would need to backport all commits made since the branch was created" Which is pretty explicit. > You just made a release without waiting for opinions of other AMS > port guys. Your lack of conversation confused me much. I am the main author of mkamsboot and I didn't think opinions of other people working on AMS port was needed at all. > But I didn't behave much better, that's true, I was a bit bitter > about it. I don't think there is a reason for you to be bitter? > We can avoid this if we're a bit more patient about releasing *very* > critical tools. I rather think the way to avoid bitter reactions if you wait and think before acting. The way I interpret your reaction, I think you got upset after reading this quote from linuxstb on the irc log, interpreted this comment as against you, and then thought I was against you as well. Am I right? > I don't want to "just release" tools that can brick > hardware without having a talk with some involved guys about it. It can not brick hardware, it was tested. You didn't develop mkamsboot, I did, and I know it works. -- Rafaël Carré
Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |