cpufreq CVS [Was: Re: cpufreq and P-IIIM]

[Dominik Brodowski <linux@brodo.de>]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 07:07:10PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:02:29AM -0700, Jan Rychter wrote:
> >  Ducrot> That version is way too old anyway.
> > 
> > Huh? That was the latest 2.4 snapshot that I was able to pull from
> > ftp.linux.org.uk: cpufreq-LINUX_2_4-20030816.tar.bz2.
> > 
> > If these are not the 'official' archives and the snapshots are outdated,
> > I'd humbly suggest pulling them off the net, because it confuses
> > people.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned (as being the guy running the CVS and FTP
> archive) they remain official until the cpufreq maintainers explicitly
> tell me otherwise.
> 
> Maintainers need to either check their changes into the CVS tree or
> tell me that they no longer wish to use CVS, or tell me that they
> want a 2.4-ac branch, or whatever.

AFAICS, 
a) the 2.6. branch development is done in Dave's BK tree. 
b) 2.4-new [== backport of 2.6. to 2.4.] was never done in CVS,
c) 2.4-ac tags exist, but because of b) are not kept up to date,
d) depending on the outcome of the ARM and cpufreq-2.4. issue,
   2.4-stable [which is CVS LINUX_2_4] is going to be deprecated soon.

Also, it is my impression that an external CVS tree is used far less if a
feature is merged into a mainline kernel. If it's not in the kernel, keeping
track of a project without something like CVS is impossible. So I'm really
glad about having had cpufreq-CVS and FTP-archives available. But, for the
future, I don't see such a strong reason for keeping it.

Just my ¤0.02
	Dominik