search for: rebased

Hi Kashyap Chamarthy: thank you very much for answer my question: 一： lead to VM filesystem becoming read-only 1： test case it lead to VM filesystem becoming read-only test case as follows: we want to snapshot for VM , to obtain VM incremental data，and use virsh blockcommit，qemu-img commit，qemu-img rebase to shorten snapshot chain. Details are as follows（when VM running state， we perform the

greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes: > Actually git pull can sometimes get you into trouble. Probably git > fetch / git rebase is the better combination for LLVM. I don't get it. Doesn't "git pull --rebase" do exactly a fetch followed by a rebase? -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Hi everyone! I use the libvirt(version: 1.2.2) and QEMU(version: 2.2.1) to test qemu snapshot features: I tried virsh blockcommit when VM offline, the virsh blockcommit failed: the error messase as below: error: Requested operation is not valid: domain is not running when I start the VM, the virsh blockcommit work fine! my question is：we need

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy at grenoble-inp.fr> writes: > greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes: > >> Actually git pull can sometimes get you into trouble. Probably git >> fetch / git rebase is the better combination for LLVM. > > I don't get it. > > Doesn't "git pull --rebase" do exactly a fetch followed by a rebase? No. It does

> I'd also recommand "git pull --rebase" if the goal is to keep history > linear. Note that this has to go with a big, fat, warning, telling the > user that rebasing published history is bad. Rebase is a very good tool > to work with private history, but as soon as you've pushed it to some > place visible by other people, you should stop using it. This is

Hi. I am using openstack, ceph and libvirt now. The live volume migration will call the libvirt rebase function in openstack nova project. https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/rocky/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#L1497 https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/rocky/nova/virt/libvirt/guest.py#L802 But I use the ceph as the openstack block backend. And the type of

Hi Pino, $subject -- do we intend to rebase libguestfs, virt-v2v and virt-p2v in RHEL 7.4? If yes, we should file the rebase bug soon. Pros: - The RHEL 7.3 package has 151 patches on top of 1.32.6. Rebasing would get almost all those patches. Not rebasing would mean (at predicted growth rate) shipping ~300-400 patches. - Backporting patches is currently hard work since the code

On Aug 23, 2011, at 12:35 AM, FlyLanguage wrote: >> I'd also recommand "git pull --rebase" if the goal is to keep history >> linear. Note that this has to go with a big, fat, warning, telling the >> user that rebasing published history is bad. Rebase is a very good tool >> to work with private history, but as soon as you've pushed it to some >> place

Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> writes: > In my humble opinion, there is a one biggest problem with git-svn and > svn. It requires the maintainer to rebase before committing, and in > git, this changes the the patch's unique ID. I didn't totally follow your argument so I'm sure I missed something. However, I don't think rebase is really the issue here.

...ly gets > merged. > >>> You review, build and test exactly the change that gets merged > afterwards. > >>> > >> > >> How would that be true? Given that upstream keep changing during the > >> period of review? The commit is going to have to be rebased to head and > >> that may involve making changes. > >> > > > > Yes, github tells you, that your PR has a merge conflict, that you need > to > > resolve manually. Once you've pushed the conflict resolution to the same > > PR, it triggers another round...

Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> writes: > Let's say I post a patch, and the (warranted) reviewer comment is that > it should be split.  I push a couple new PRs, they get approved, and > landed.  (All as new branches off master.)  Then, I have a stale branch > (say it contains 2 commits) which needs rewritten.  I can of course do > an interactive rebase, and a

David, A few comments. > Naming Upstream > --------------- > > The intial clone from upstream results in a git remote reference with > the rather unhelpful name of "origin." As more remote sources get > added, it is easy to forget what "origin" is. Therefore, add a remote > with a more descriptive name. > > git remote add llvm-upstream

Thanks for your reply. The nova project uses the virDomainBlockRebase API to finish the rebase operation from the old disk to the new disk not using the virDomainBlockCopy API. I am confused of the difference of virDomainBlockRebase and virDomainBlockCopy. Cheers, Boxiang On 11/5/2018 22:07，Peter Krempa<pkrempa@redhat.com> wrote： On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 13:42:56 +0800, Boxiang Zhu wrote:

Hi ALL, Short description of my problem: I am not able to make wireless network working on the IBM ThinkPad T43p. System: T43p OS: CentOS 4.4 kernel: 2.6.9-34.EL firmware: ipw2200-firmware-3.0-3.nodist.rf.noarch.rpm What did I do ? - installed firmware from RPM package - removed kernel driver (/sbin/rmmod ipw2200) - installed kernel module (/sbin/modprobe ipw2200) dmesg output:

Just to clarify: All the LLVM incubator repositories have "enforce linear history" enabled. Neither "Squash and Merge" or "Rebase and Merge" results in a Merge commit in the git history. Steve On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:32 PM Hubert Tong < hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:12 PM Renato Golin <rengolin at

LLVM Community, > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-July/041738.html This was extraordinarily valuable in learning to understand the situation - thank you David Blaikie for pointing me to it. A few key snippets: "Because I optimize for the code reviewer, not the patch submitter," Chris Lattner "Forcing transitioning to git makes no sense for a lot of us - for

Good morning, Dave. On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:17 AM, David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Do git repositories cloned from git-svn mirrors work properly?  For > example: > >                         svn >                          ^ >                          | >                          | >                          V >                       git-svn

Hi, As part of the migration of LLVM's source code to github, we need to update our developer policy with instructions about how to interact with the new git repository. There are a lot of different topics we will need to discuss, but I would like to start by initiating a discussion about our merge commit policy. Should we: 1. Disallow merge commits and enforce a linear history by

NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> writes: >> I don't think one can share commits from clone A to/from clone B without >> going through the parent git-svn repository.  Is that right?  I recall >> having read something about that somewhere. > > Maybe sure on git-svn's branch (eg. master). > "master" should never be pushed to

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 13:42:56 +0800, Boxiang Zhu wrote: > > > Hi. > I am using openstack, ceph and libvirt now. > > > The live volume migration will call the libvirt rebase function in openstack nova project. > https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/rocky/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py#L1497 >