> To the extent that, with a centralized system, developers can't do any development that would make the naive method wrong, that's true. In a centralized system you can easily *order* commits in time and then use this order as a much user-friendlier commit ID than a checksum (this is exactly what subversion does).įrom the above it is obvious that release 5 is fixed while release 4 is not. Posted 9:53 UTC (Fri) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) Using some combination of describe and log will makeįiguring those kinds of things out much easier. Using git-blame to track down the commit whereĪ particular change was made is often useful, but the dates in the log canīe misleading with regards to which kernel(s) the change ended up in. While the specific example Torvalds gave might not be widely applicable, On a recent kernel tree, the start of thatĭ83c49f v2.6.34 Fix the regression created by "set S_DEAD on unlink()." commitģe297b6 v2.6.34-rc3 Restore LOOKUP_DIRECTORY hint handling in final lookup on opħ81b167 v2.6.34-rc2 Fix a dumb typo - use of & instead of &ġf36f77 v2.6.34-rc2 Switch !O_CREAT case to use of do_last() Which shows commits by Al Viro of fs/namei.c along with the taggedĮach commit was included into. Git log -tags -source -author=viro -oneline fs/namei.c Git-describe -contains, but a more " obscure" way to One can use git name-rev in much the same way as As one might guess, though, Torvalds had some more elaborate Patch was applied to, or was pulled into if you use the -containsįlag. Suggested git-describe, which will show the tag of the version a PITA." Christoph Hellwig and James Bottomley both Sub-optimal: " I just keep lots of kernel trees around and poke about with `patch That led to a discussion about how to figure out which kernel That fixed a regression and he sent the patch to the stable tree folks asīeen introduced in the merge window, so it wasn't relevant for the stable
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |