rebased version of wireless-testing?
Is there a rebased version of wireless-testing, or is there a way to tell git to not apply any patch that was later reverted when pulling?
I'd like to pull wireless-testing changes into a tree based on linux-2.6, but I want it clean enough to easily see what changes I actually pulled in.
If not, I can manually pull in some patches as needed.
Thanks,
Ben
Signature · 2 lines
Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Quoted 8 lines · Ben Greear
Is there a rebased version of wireless-testing, or is there a way to tell git to not apply any patch that was later reverted when pulling?
I'd like to pull wireless-testing changes into a tree based on linux-2.6, but I want it clean enough to easily see what changes I actually pulled in.
If not, I can manually pull in some patches as needed.
Don't do that -- wireless-testing is and likely always will be a mess. It really only exists as a "-next lite" for those that only want bleeding-edge wireless while keeping-up with linux-2.6 release candidates.
You will be better-off pulling wireless-next-2.6 (and maybe wireless-2.6 as well). The history there isn't always immutable (although I prefer it to be), but it will tend to be a lot cleaner than wireless-testing.
John
Signature · 2 lines
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you [email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
Quoted 15 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 8 lines · Ben Greear
Is there a rebased version of wireless-testing, or is there a way to tell git to not apply any patch that was later reverted when pulling?
I'd like to pull wireless-testing changes into a tree based on linux-2.6, but I want it clean enough to easily see what changes I actually pulled in.
If not, I can manually pull in some patches as needed.
Don't do that -- wireless-testing is and likely always will be a mess. It really only exists as a "-next lite" for those that only want bleeding-edge wireless while keeping-up with linux-2.6 release candidates.
Quoted 4 lines
You will be better-off pulling wireless-next-2.6 (and maybe wireless-2.6 as well). The history there isn't always immutable (although I prefer it to be), but it will tend to be a lot cleaner than wireless-testing.
Any chance you could push tags in wireless-next-2.6?
Thanks,
Ben
Quoted 2 lines
John
Signature · 2 lines
Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Quoted 6 lines · Ben Greear
Quoted 4 lines
You will be better-off pulling wireless-next-2.6 (and maybe wireless-2.6 as well). The history there isn't always immutable (although I prefer it to be), but it will tend to be a lot cleaner than wireless-testing.
Any chance you could push tags in wireless-next-2.6?
Not sure what you mean -- are you not seeing the master-<date> tags?
John
Signature · 2 lines
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you [email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
Quoted 10 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 6 lines · Ben Greear
Quoted 4 lines
You will be better-off pulling wireless-next-2.6 (and maybe wireless-2.6 as well). The history there isn't always immutable (although I prefer it to be), but it will tend to be a lot cleaner than wireless-testing.
Any chance you could push tags in wireless-next-2.6?
Not sure what you mean -- are you not seeing the master-<date> tags?
It didn't seem like the 2.6.36-rcX tags were there..but then again, maybe I'm looking for something that doesn't exist?
Basically, my goal is to pull in most or all of the changes from wireless-testing into a tree based on Linus's tree (2.6.36-rc5 currently). But, I need to keep my tree clean enough to deal with rebasing and following Linus's tree because I have a bunch of my own patches to add as well.
If nothing else, I'll manually pull the virtual-wifi patches that I need out of wireless-testing and apply them to my tree.
Thanks,
Ben
Quoted 2 lines
John
Signature · 2 lines
Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Quoted 8 lines · Ben Greear
Quoted 7 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 5 lines · Ben Greear
Quoted 4 lines
You will be better-off pulling wireless-next-2.6 (and maybe wireless-2.6 as well). The history there isn't always immutable (although I prefer it to be), but it will tend to be a lot cleaner than wireless-testing.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Any chance you could push tags in wireless-next-2.6?
Not sure what you mean -- are you not seeing the master-<date> tags?
It didn't seem like the 2.6.36-rcX tags were there..but then again, maybe I'm looking for something that doesn't exist?
Ah...well, they probably won't be in there until after 2.6.36 is released. I generally don't pull from Linus into that tree during the release cycle in order to avoid surprising Dave when he pulls it. But if you are basing on linux-2.6 then you should already have those tags anyway?
John
Signature · 2 lines
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you [email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
Quoted 13 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 12 lines · Ben Greear
Quoted 10 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 6 lines · Ben Greear
Quoted 4 lines
You will be better-off pulling wireless-next-2.6 (and maybe wireless-2.6 as well). The history there isn't always immutable (although I prefer it to be), but it will tend to be a lot cleaner than wireless-testing.
Any chance you could push tags in wireless-next-2.6?
Not sure what you mean -- are you not seeing the master-<date> tags?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
It didn't seem like the 2.6.36-rcX tags were there..but then again, maybe I'm looking for something that doesn't exist?
Ah...well, they probably won't be in there until after 2.6.36 is released. I generally don't pull from Linus into that tree during the release cycle in order to avoid surprising Dave when he pulls it. But if you are basing on linux-2.6 then you should already have those tags anyway?
I was going to run some diffs in wt against 2.6.36-rc5 to try to figure out the changes I needed to pull in.
A straight pull of wt into 2.6.36-rc5 didn't work well for me, and it appeared a rebase was going to be even worse.
So, I'm going to try manually applying patches...after I make another stab at getting the ath5k virtual AP/STA patch acceptable.
Thanks,
Ben
Quoted 2 lines
John
Signature · 2 lines
Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com