This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: onwards to git
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jim Meyering <jim at meyering dot net>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-ports at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:55:08 -0400
- Subject: Re: onwards to git
- References: <49F89C2D.5060702@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904292008041.31467@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20090429203933.08694FC3BF@magilla.sf.frob.com> <87hc07dt5x.fsf@meyering.net> <20090430195521.B8C59FC3BF@magilla.sf.frob.com>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Not unless you see there's a missing tag.
>> The value in keeping the existing SHA1 hashes
>> outweighs that of a few omitted tags (which could
>> probably be reconstructed anyway, if desired).
>
> Ok. ?I think we are fine with manual fiddling for tags. ?(ports is a fairly
> tiny repository to deal with either way.) ?AFAICT, there are no tags at all
> in git. ?The only cvs tags are the release and branch-base tags, of which
> there are just a few (and we'll change the naming convention for tags we
> use in git, anyway).
I'm working on the website update and I have some questions...
Q: How do I checkout the glibc-2_9-branch from git?
A: Checkout the sources from the glibc-2_9 tag into a local branch
named glibc-2_9-branch
git checkout -b glibc-2_9-branch glibc-2_9
Is that the right procedure?
Cheers,
Carlos.