v1.3.1 tag is not present in any branch
As seen on IRC and github issues:
https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/issues/316
There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!
live well,
vagrant
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/opensbi/attachments/20230721/b0388162/attachment.sig>
Quoted 5 lines · On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 6:38?AM Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> wrote:
As seen on IRC and github issues:
Quoted 8 lines
There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!
I had pushed release-1.3.1 branch two days back since few folks (including yourself) reported this issue.
This is the first time that we did an intermediate release so going forward I will ensure that a separate branch in pushed for an intermediate releases whenever intermediate release has a different commit history compared to master branch.
Thanks,
Anup
Quoted 7 lines
live well,
vagrant
--
opensbi mailing list
opensbi at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi
Quoted 10 lines · Anup Patel
Quoted 8 lines · On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 6:38?AM Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> wrote:
As seen on IRC and github issues:
https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/issues/316
There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!
I had pushed release-1.3.1 branch two days back since few folks (including yourself) reported this issue.
What happens if there?s then a 1.3.2?
1.3.1 is overly narrow. Good for tags but not branches. Something like 1.3.x as suggested is more forward-thinking.
Jess
Quoted 21 lines
This is the first time that we did an intermediate release so going forward I will ensure that a separate branch in pushed for an intermediate releases whenever intermediate release has a different commit history compared to master branch.
Thanks,
AnupQuoted 7 lines
live well,
vagrant
--
opensbi mailing list
opensbi at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbiSignature · 3 lines
opensbi mailing list opensbi at lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi
Quoted 14 lines · On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:24?AM Jessica Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 12 lines · Anup Patel
Quoted 10 lines · On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 6:38?AM Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> wrote:
As seen on IRC and github issues:
https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/issues/316
There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!
I had pushed release-1.3.1 branch two days back since few folks (including yourself) reported this issue.
What happens if there?s then a 1.3.2?
If the commit history of 1.3.2 differs from the master branch then we will have to create release-1.3.2 branch for 1.3.2 as well.
Quoted 3 lines
1.3.1 is overly narrow. Good for tags but not branches. Something like 1.3.x as suggested is more forward-thinking.
I agree and that's why I had only created a tag but it seems not everyone prefers git fetch to get latest tags.
Regards,
Anup
Quoted 25 lines
Jess
Quoted 21 lines
This is the first time that we did an intermediate release so going forward I will ensure that a separate branch in pushed for an intermediate releases whenever intermediate release has a different commit history compared to master branch.
Thanks,
AnupQuoted 7 lines
live well,
vagrant
--
opensbi mailing list
opensbi at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi--
opensbi mailing list
opensbi at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi
Quoted 20 lines · Anup Patel
Quoted 18 lines · On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:24?AM Jessica Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 16 lines · Anup Patel
Quoted 13 lines · On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 6:38?AM Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> wrote:
As seen on IRC and github issues:
https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/issues/316
There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I had pushed release-1.3.1 branch two days back since few folks (including yourself) reported this issue.
What happens if there?s then a 1.3.2?
If the commit history of 1.3.2 differs from the master branch then we will have to create release-1.3.2 branch for 1.3.2 as well.
If 1.3.2 is based off master not 1.3.1 then that?s some very misleading versioning. I would seriously hope that 1.3.2 is 1.3.1 + patches, both content-wise and history-wise, and thus it belongs in a 1.3.x branch.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
1.3.1 is overly narrow. Good for tags but not branches. Something like 1.3.x as suggested is more forward-thinking.
I agree and that's why I had only created a tag but it seems not everyone prefers git fetch to get latest tags.
So why did you choose to create release-1.3.1 rather than release-1.3.x as was originally suggested?
Jess
Quoted 27 lines
Regards,
AnupQuoted 24 lines
Jess
Quoted 21 lines
This is the first time that we did an intermediate release so going forward I will ensure that a separate branch in pushed for an intermediate releases whenever intermediate release has a different commit history compared to master branch.
Thanks,
AnupQuoted 7 lines
live well,
vagrant
--
opensbi mailing list
opensbi at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi--
opensbi mailing list
opensbi at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi
Quoted 25 lines · On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:24?AM Jessica Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 23 lines · Anup Patel
Quoted 21 lines · On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:24?AM Jessica Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 18 lines · Anup Patel
Quoted 5 lines · On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 6:38?AM Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> wrote:
As seen on IRC and github issues:
Quoted 8 lines
There does not appear to be a branch that contains v1.3.1, which makes it rather complicated to actually fetch the tag.
https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/tree/v1.3.1
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Please push a 1.3.x branch or some such with the tag!
I had pushed release-1.3.1 branch two days back since few folks (including yourself) reported this issue.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
What happens if there?s then a 1.3.2?
If the commit history of 1.3.2 differs from the master branch then we will have to create release-1.3.2 branch for 1.3.2 as well.
If 1.3.2 is based off master not 1.3.1 then that?s some very misleading versioning. I would seriously hope that 1.3.2 is 1.3.1 + patches, both content-wise and history-wise, and thus it belongs in a 1.3.x branch.
Yes, if 1.3.2 happens then it will be based on 1.3.1.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
1.3.1 is overly narrow. Good for tags but not branches. Something like 1.3.x as suggested is more forward-thinking.
I agree and that's why I had only created a tag but it seems not everyone prefers git fetch to get latest tags.
So why did you choose to create release-1.3.1 rather than release-1.3.x as was originally suggested?
It is very unlikely that we have more 1.3.x intermediate releases. I certainly don't mind using release-1.3.x as the branch name so I have renamed it.
Regards,
Anup
Quoted 32 lines
Jess
Quoted 27 lines
Regards,
AnupQuoted 24 lines
Jess
Quoted 21 lines
This is the first time that we did an intermediate release so going forward I will ensure that a separate branch in pushed for an intermediate releases whenever intermediate release has a different commit history compared to master branch.
Thanks,
AnupQuoted 7 lines
live well,
vagrant
--
opensbi mailing list
opensbi at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi--
opensbi mailing list
opensbi at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi