git tree / branches / ancestor?
Ivan.Kluchnikov at fairwaves.ru
Wed Jul 11 06:41:46 UTC 2012
As we previously discussed with Andreas, today I plan to merge jolly_new
branch with master and use Andreas's code as base.
After this merge, it makes sense, if we all continue working from this
point, in order to avoid merge problems in future.
Actually, we have already briefly discussed and coordinated our plans with
Andreas in mailing list thread "TBF acknowledged mode is now working".
2012/7/11 Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org>
> Hi all!
> while reviewing the current PCU code in the git repository, it occurred
> to me that somehow the jolly_new branch doesn't seem to be based on
> master, and the only common ancestor is
> 9b06ff0c4c49f1927b9029d38e16670a7b7301fb from June 15.
> In fact, Ivan seems to have made a number of changes concurrently with
> Andreas, but not basing on each other's code. It's really a big mess,
> from what I can tell.
> I'm referring to the followign commit's by Ivan:
> Which are completely unrelated to the work that Andreas has been doing
> at the same time (all his commit's from 2012-06-27 on, i.e.
> 39621c41f303e24b7324dc4c91447a449d2a654b and later.
> I strongly recomend that you coordinate more and re-view each others'
> code better.
> And regarding the messy situatin with master vs. jolly_new: I think the
> only practical solution is to drop one of the two parallel and
> incompatible changes regarding the RLC/MAC and TBF establishment
> Do you have any input on how to resolve this specific issue? I think
> none of us can afford to waste resources on duplication of work and
> creating virtually un-mergeable branches :/
> - Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org>
> "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
> (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmocom-net-gprs