Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:45:24 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: acpica in stable/8 Message-ID: <4B6C2F04.1010104@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <201002050936.08434.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <4B6BD8B2.2060504@icyb.net.ua> <201002050936.08434.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 05/02/2010 16:36 John Baldwin said the following: > On Friday 05 February 2010 3:37:06 am Andriy Gapon wrote: >> I would like to bring version of ACPICA in stable/8 to that of head, that is >> 20100121. >> >> Here's svn status and svn diff outputs for the merge: >> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/stable-8-acpi.status.txt >> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/stable-8-acpi.diff >> >> I've performed this MFC by doing series of svn merges first to sys, then to >> usr.sbin/acpi. I hope that this is a correct approach. >> I have some doubts because of heard suggestions that such merges should be done >> from vendor area. But, OTOH, in head there were direct commits sys to fix >> consequences of merge from vendor area. >> Subversion gurus, please advise! > > You should just MFC the changes from HEAD. You should not merge from the > vendor branch directly into a stable branch. The only time that would be > appropriate would be to merge a vendor change into a stable branch that > was never merged to HEAD (e.g. if some vendor software 'foo' was upgraded > from version 1 to version 2 in HEAD but was version 1 in a stable branch > and later a patch release 1.1 that fixed a security bug came out, then 1.1 > would be imported into the vendor area and directly merged to the stable > branch). Thanks a lot for the explanation! So, this is exactly what I did. I guess it should be OK to commit then, provided I haven't overlooked something else. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B6C2F04.1010104>