Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting
From: Joerg Mayer <jmayer () loplof de>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 11:00:23 +0100
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:35:06PM +0100, Jaap Keuter wrote:
On backporting, I did a lot of that stuff for 1.4.11. From my experience, when the patch is clean the backport is easy. Trouble is is that the patch comes from another trunk, which may have other changes (like ENCodings) which make patches incompatible. A little (or a lot of) tweaking of the patch makes them apply, but this cannot be automated. So thinking about automation is a step too far. Another way of tagging/marking revisions would 1. require a script to extract the tags/marks, and 2. commit messages cannot be corrected once a mistake is made.
The idea (as I see it) would work as follows: - We (well Gerald :) want to make a new release 1.6.n+1 - Obtain the svn revision of 1.6.n - Go through the changelog of all patches to trunk since that commit up to HEAD. - Determine all commits that have the backport magic in the commit message - Extract all these patches into individual files with their revision numbers in the name. Create a corresponding file with the original commit message (maybe with the backport magic removed). Up until this point, everything can be automated. For every patchfile: - Apply the patch and make fixes if necessary. - Commit using the commit file. This would reduce the overhead of the backporting process for Gerald.
As flawed as it is, the Wiki is the best we got so far. Other tools (who uses Trac, or that other one I can't remember right now) may provide this.
I see this differently, as stated above ;-) Ciao Jörg Teaser: I have a writeup of the Dinnertalks and FOSDEM Beer Event on my laptop, but maybe there will be more during today. -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer () loplof de> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Joerg Mayer (Feb 03)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Bill Meier (Feb 03)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Graham Bloice (Feb 03)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Bill Meier (Feb 03)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Graham Bloice (Feb 06)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Graham Bloice (Feb 03)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Bill Meier (Feb 03)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Jaap Keuter (Feb 03)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Joerg Mayer (Feb 05)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting / packet-x11.c Jeff Morriss (Feb 03)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Guy Harris (Feb 03)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Alexis La Goutte (Feb 04)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Jeff Morriss (Feb 06)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Michael Tuexen (Feb 17)
- Re: Meeting minutes from (pre)FOSDEM meeting Anders Broman (Feb 18)