Hi Masahiro,
On Jun 22, 2014 9:51 PM, "Masahiro Yamada" yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:39:26 -0600 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Masahiro,
On 22 June 2014 21:19, Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com
wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:27:06 -0600 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Masahiro,
On 11 June 2014 23:27, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
When patman applies the patches it checks out a new branch, uses
'git am'
to apply the patches one by one, and then tries to go back to the
old
branch. If you try this when the branch is 'undefined', this
doesn't work
as patman cannot restore the correct branch after applying the
patches.
It seems that 'undefined' is created by git and is persistent
after it is
created, so that you can end up on quite an old branch.
Add a check for the 'undefined' branch to avoid this.
Reported-by: Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Can you please check if this fixes the problem you reported? If so I would like to get it into this release.
I cannot understand why patman needs to apply the patches with 'git
am'.
Why isn't patman like this ? [1] Generate patches with 'git format-patch' [2] Parse the patman-tags in the generated patches and edit them.
2a. Apply the patches to make sure there are no whitespace errors.
[3] Send the patches with 'git send-email'
The whitespace problems are not common but they do happen sometimes - or at least I have seen it at times. Unless perhaps checkpatch has got smarter?
I still don't understand. Anyway, Patman invokes checkpatch.pl, right? Isn't whitespace error checking of checkpatch nice?
Not when I wrote patman, no. Maybe it has changed? I could perhaps invert the meaning of the -a flag :-)
Regards, Simon
Best Regards Masahiro Yamada