|
[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 |