Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:26:33 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: magnum-jumbo and magnum-bleeding (NOT J7), and the source() function On 2012-07-09 23:52, jfoug wrote: >> From: magnum [mailto:john.magnum@...hmail.com] >>> 3. Get jumbo-bleed updated with these changes. >>> >>> 4. Move these changes into magnum-jumbo (since we have a Jumbo- >> 7RC >>> branch of git). Once this is done, bleeding and jumbo should be back >> to >>> being much more 'similar' to each other. >> >> Thinks that should be in magnum-jumbo should enter the tree in magnum- >> jumbo, and propagate to bleeding. The other way round works too but is >> trickier to merge, and history looks weird afterwards (patches listed >> twice). > > I do not know enough about how git will merge this to comment 'too' much > about this. The reason I listed it this way, is that it already IS in > bleeding, although with wrong name. Thus, it would be trivial to get > bleeding as it stands updated. You are absolutely right, this did not occur to me. Let's start with bleeding. I'm not sure we should even bother merging it to magnum-jumbo now - bleeding will be a released Jumbo within reasonable time, and at that time, bleeding-jumbo will practically change name to magnum-jumbo. And there will be no bleeding until core diverts again. > However if bleeding is simply a set of patches 'OFF' of the magnum-jumbo > branch, then yes, I think you are right, and we should change the > magnum-jumbo branch, and then the bleed would simply contain fewer changes. For other things, this is the better approach. So, for example, sha-2 changes should be based on magnum-jumbo because that stuff is there already. magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.