From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: cpufreq CVS [Was: Re: cpufreq and P-IIIM] Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:33:49 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20030818193349.F1737@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20030818112943.GD18032@poupinou.org> <20030818190710.C1737@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20030818182137.GA2296@brodo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030818182137.GA2296@brodo.de>; from linux@brodo.de on Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 08:21:37PM +0200 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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: Jan Rychter , Ducrot Bruno , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 08:21:37PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > 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. As you're aware (we discussed this at the time when cpufreq was merged into 2.5) that's my POV as well. That just leaves davej and ducrot to say exactly what they want killed. I'll consider going as far as taring up the CVS tree as it currently stands and putting that on the ftp site for history, if that's what people want. But people have to tell me... 8) -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html