From: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
To: "Post, Mark K" <mark.post@eds.com>
Cc: "'Linux390'" <linux-390@vm.marist.edu>,
"'BOEBLINGEN LINUX390'" <LINUX390@de.ibm.com>,
"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Discrepancy between ftp.kernel.org and linux.bkbits.net
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:04:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41EB395F.50602@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5A14AF34CFF8AD44A44891F7C9FF41050157A123@usahm236.amer.corp.eds.com>
Post, Mark K wrote:
> I believe I've discovered an odd discrepancy between what is in the official
> Linux BitKeeper repository, and what is on ftp.kernel.org. According to
> BitKeeper, the last time linux/arch/s390/config.in and
> linux/arch/s390x/config.in were changed is 17 months ago. What is in
> ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.28.tar.bz2 was last modified
> on November 17, 2004. The difference between the two versions is this:
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
> bool 'BSD Process Accounting' CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT
> bool 'Sysctl support' CONFIG_SYSCTL
> define_bool CONFIG_KCORE_ELF y
> -tristate 'Kernel support for ELF binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> +bool 'Kernel support for ELF binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> tristate 'Kernel support for MISC binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC
> bool 'Show crashed user process info' CONFIG_PROCESS_DEBUG
> bool 'Pseudo page fault support' CONFIG_PFAULT
>
>
> Admittedly, pretty small, but still disturbing to me, at least. What's
> interesting is that this change seems to have been made to a _lot_ of
> architectures (14 in all) in patch-2.4.28-pre2.bz2, which is now in
> ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/testing/old/ That file is dated August
> 26, 2004. This same change was included in -pre3, all the way through -rc4,
> and then the final 2.4.28. The entry in the patch-2.4.28.log looks like
> this:
> Adrian Bunk:
> o 2.4.28-pre1: add two SATA Configure.help entries
> o disallow modular BINFMT_ELF
>
> Does anyone have any idea why this didn't make it into BitKeeper? Should it
> be in BitKeeper or not? This looks like some sort of process failure (or
> failure to follow the process), which is what concerns me the most.
Browsing bkbits.net shows that it is there:
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/diffs/arch/s390/config.in@1.14?nav=index.html|src/|src/arch|src/arch/s390|hist/arch/s390/config.in
so a 'bk pull' doesn't show it?? (I can't verify yes/no on that.)
--
~Randy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-17 4:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-17 2:18 Discrepancy between ftp.kernel.org and linux.bkbits.net Post, Mark K
2005-01-17 4:04 ` Randy.Dunlap [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-01-17 4:48 Post, Mark K
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41EB395F.50602@osdl.org \
--to=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=LINUX390@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-390@vm.marist.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.post@eds.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.