[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add TRACKING.IMPORTS to xen.git to more easily manage imported files that need to be kept in sync with an upstream
On 17/05/2019, 01:34, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 16.05.19 at 17:54, <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 16/05/2019, 04:47, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> On 16.05.19 at 00:18, <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +# Mappings to track files are of the following format > > +# --------------------------------------------------- > > +# manual|auto xen-file name-of-original-repo original-file commit-id > > +# > > +# auto: > > +# The xen-file needs to track the the original-file exactly > > +# In other words, we can automatically update the file using a script > > Do we have _any_ example of this? I can't even imagine one, due > to e.g. our includes all starting with xen/ whereas Linux'es (just to > take as example) all start with linux/. Perhaps "auto" needs to > include sed expressions that need to be applied before actually > applying the original change to our tree? > > I am not sure I fully understand your concern. > This was intended for the case where say we would exactly track > xen/.../foo.bar with linux/.../foo.bar > In other words, auto only applies to the content of a file: the filename > isn't relevant, because all the information that would be needed to do this > is in the file. When talking about file names in my reply, I referred to C language #include directives inside the file in question, as a (pretty important) example. There was no talk about the cloned/copied file's name itself. Hence the suggestion to accompany auto: with a set of sed expressions, which could then e.g. transform #include <linux/...> into #include <xen/...>. That makes perfect sense now. In that case, I tend to agree that "auto" is probably not needed. Would be quite happy to drop it. > @Julien, @Stefano, @Jan: are any of the files you listed fall into the > "should be tracked exactly" category? As I've said before - I can't even imagine such a file to exist. > > +# manual: > > +# A developer needs to make a decision whether a > > +# specific change is applied or ignored and update the last commit id > > +# accordingly > > +# > > +# name-of-original-repo: > > +# A reference to a source repository defined by *repo* keyword > > +# > > +# commit id: > > +# Last commit id of source file that was deemed to be ok > > +# and either imported into the tree or rejected > > +# > > +# For example: > > +# manual xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c linux-torvalds > linux/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b77cf11f094136 > > + > > +version 1 > > Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to include the colons in the actual entries as > well? > > I am not sure what you mean, which colons? Are you saying, the format should be > version: 1 > repo: ... Yes. This would make it even more prominent that these are tags of some sort. But this was only a thought of mine, it's in no way meant to be a requirement I have. > I think the confusion comes because I used colons after statements in the > comments. Right, that's how I got there. > I think that "version: 1" is slightly more human-readable, so I would be OK > with that A well defined non-blank separator also allows machine processing to notice more easily if there's a malformed line. Plus (if need be) it would permit tags with blanks in their names. I can do that. No problem. Any other comments from anyone, before sending version 2? Lars _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |