From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Wozniak <awozniak@mc.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:55:24 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] u-boot source - cvs versus git
In-Reply-To: <20051116234203.5BA68352568@atlas.denx.de>
References: <20051116234203.5BA68352568@atlas.denx.de>
Message-ID: <437C8BCC.4010100@mc.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <437BBA6A.7080708@mc.com> you wrote:
>> I understand that U-Boot development and source is now management using 
>> "git". Since the cvs tree does seem to be pretty recent, is it ok to 
> 
> The git and CVS trees are 100% in sync. All commits on the  git  tree
> have been checked in in parallel on the CVS tree, too.

This is good news.

> Perhaps you might be so kind as to elucidate why you  think  the  CVS
> tree might not be up to date?

I recall reading a few older messages which suggested that CVS tree 
might be lagging behind.

>> pull the latest U-Boot source from the cvs tree?  Or is there less risk 
>> of missing important code patches by using git?
> 
> The code is exactly the same.
> 
>> After several failures at building git for my RH7.2 system, I decided to 
>> go back to using cvs - it just works!
> 
> Ummm.. RH7.2 is pretty old, with a list of known andunfixed exploits.
> If I were you I would consider to update my development  host  system
> insted.

Yes it is outdated. This is a "crash-and-burn" machine I had been using 
for testing legacy products and haven't had time to upgrade it. 
Considering it is a triple boot machine makes upgrading even more time 
consuming.

Guten tag, Andrew

> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk
>