On Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 7:04 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 15/8/20 8:31 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 4:42 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org > > <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote: > > > > On 15/8/20 5:57 am, Jan Sommer wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I finally got around to port the e1000 driver fixes which are > already > > > present in the 5-freebsd-12 branch of rtems-libbsd also for the > master > > > (and 5) branch. > > > > Thanks. I will push these soon. > > > > I am not sure if the 5 branch in the rtems-libbsd.git repo is right > and if it > > should be made from the 5-freebsd-12 branch? I feel it is currently > confusing > > but either way it has issues. > > > > If I remember correctly, Sebastian told me 5 was FreeBSD master on RTEMS > 5. > > If that's right, it would have been better with the longer name > 5-freebsd-master > > since we use 5 as the name for other repos to indicate trusted "5". > > Problems appear when we have variants in names because management around > the > repos needs to handle special cases ... > > > https://git.rtems.org/rtems-release/tree/rtems-release-package-start?h=5#n109 > > On the other hand the difference in one repo like libbsd has created a > special > case in the release scripts because 5 was being picked up and released > without > error until I caught it testing. Thus the need for the mapping and that > rippled > out in to other issues. > > I am not sure what the answer is but any solution or change needs to be > worked > through our procedures. >
+1 I rather like the idea of combining RTEMS version with the bsd version in the branch name. I know it is a bit of a pain in scripts..even explaining it to people is odd. But a regular pattern would help and not having simple numbers would help avoid mistakes. > > Chris >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
