From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:44:33 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Tom Rini Cc: Larry McVoy , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: 2.5 development Message-ID: <20020215104433.C28735@work.bitmover.com> References: <15468.64269.8252.644104@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20020215085812.Z8353@work.bitmover.com> <20020215173210.GM2004@opus.bloom.county> <20020215093350.K8353@work.bitmover.com> <20020215173619.GN2004@opus.bloom.county> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020215173619.GN2004@opus.bloom.county>; from trini@kernel.crashing.org on Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 10:36:19AM -0700 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: > These are related trees. For 2.5.x all of the PPC trees are related to > the official Linus 2.5.x bk tree. Something like: > linux-2.5 -> {for-linus-*, linuxppc-2.5}. > Since linuxppc-2.5 and for-linus-ppc are both children of linux-2.5, > shouldn't they be related? Yes, if they are all clones from the same original tree, they are all related. The way to tell is to run "bk identity" in each tree, if that output is the same, you may pull between them. I thought Paul was talking about taking changes from the tree Cort created and putting it the tree Linus created. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/