From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dominik Brodowski Subject: cpufreq CVS [Was: Re: cpufreq and P-IIIM] Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:21:37 +0200 Sender: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20030818182137.GA2296@brodo.de> References: <20030818112943.GD18032@poupinou.org> <20030818190710.C1737@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030818190710.C1737@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Errors-To: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Jan Rychter , Ducrot Bruno , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > If these are not the 'official' archives and the snapshots are outdat= ed, > > I'd humbly suggest pulling them off the net, because it confuses > > people. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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,=20 a) the 2.6. branch development is done in Dave's BK tree.=20 b) 2.4-new [=3D=3D 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, keep= ing track of a project without something like CVS is impossible. So I'm reall= y glad about having had cpufreq-CVS and FTP-archives available. But, for th= e future, I don't see such a strong reason for keeping it. Just my =A40.02 Dominik