| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: CVS Request: tag merges |
| From: | "Marcelo E. Magallon" <marcelo.magallon@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 28 May 2001 11:04:08 +0200 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3B11C367.7A7D0DD@xxxxxxx>; from sandeen@xxxxxxx on Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:17:59PM -0500 |
| Mail-followup-to: | "Marcelo E. Magallon" <marcelo.magallon@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20010527120700.A3630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3B11C367.7A7D0DD@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.15i |
>> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> writes: > I'm not sure what the advantage would be? It's no more stable right > after a kernel merge, or anything like that. But if you convince me > that it's useful, I could probably do it. No promises though, I just > got a whole lot more(!) busy as of last week. I sympathize. The point is to make it easier to compare the XFS tree with the kernel tree, that is, to be able to check out the version right after a given merge at any point in time. I'm asking this because yesterday I was merging current XFS CVS with 2.4.5 and there were a couple of points where I was left wondering when and why a change was made, and I wished I could have the status of the CVS tree right after 2.4.4 was merged. I ended up figuring out the dates for the merge, but using tags is easier... -- Marcelo |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: LVM Utilities?, Simon Matter |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | INCREDIBLE MEGA EXPERIENCE!, POWERWEB-TV |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: CVS Request: tag merges, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: CVS Request: tag merges, Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |