From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4572DB4F.9030600@domain.hid> Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:12:31 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20061124105346.e442448d.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <4566C5AF.7030107@domain.hid> <20061124113009.08c0a490.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <4569E699.6050003@domain.hid> <20061127092143.e633cd91.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <456ACA35.8030206@domain.hid> <20061127125419.3852edd9.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <456AD5EB.5040901@domain.hid> <20061130133745.272ab4b1.benjamin.zores@domain.hid> <456EDA4B.3060809@domain.hid> <1165013200.4952.177.camel@domain.hid> <1165014875.4952.199.camel@domain.hid> <4571491D.502@domain.hid> <1165078727.4952.222.camel@domain.hid> <4571B9DF.6010101@domain.hid> <1165081330.4952.228.camel@domain.hid> <4571BEF8.5080900@domain.hid> <1165102321.4952.331.camel@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <1165102321.4952.331.camel@domain.hid> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig39BDB8E1EEF4E2501716D3FA" Sender: jan.kiszka@domain.hid Subject: [Xenomai-core] Re: I-pipe git trees List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: rpm@xenomai.org Cc: adeos-main@gna.org, xenomai-core This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig39BDB8E1EEF4E2501716D3FA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 18:59 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >=20 > [...Resuming the discussion on both interested lists...] >=20 >> Rough idea from my side on a potential organisation of the git trees: >> >> o A generic I-pipe core tree that primarily targets git head (i.e. 2.= 6) >> o One branch for git head, pulls both from Linus' tree and the I-pipe= >> core >=20 > What would be the purpose of this branch? Let me first sort the term chaos of "trees" and "branches" I left behind. Each line in the following ascii graphic represents a git repository (or tree). The 2.6 repositories may have branches to maintain I-pipe patches for certain kernel releases. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ | | ... | | | | | |/ | | | | | | 2.6.19 | | ... | | | |/ | |/ | | | | 2.6.17 | | ? | | | |/ | |/ | | | | 2.6.16 | | ? | | | |/ | |/ | | I-pipe Mainline Blackfin [other 2.4 2.4 Core Head CVS HEAD archs?] x86 ELDK Except for the 2.4 repositories or if some branch is in maintenance mode and only tracks bug fixes, all trees pull their generic I-pipe support regularly from the core tree. Centre of gravity is the mainline tree. Its head tries to follow Linus' tree closely (probably best during the last weeks of a -rc cycle). Meanwhile, it's branches maintain support for official releases. This support is kept up-to-date until we have a more recent Linux version for all archs in question. Or we keep it running as a stable branch (I have 2.6.16 in mind here). If some arch is not in mainline or has a better tree to follow, we need a separate repository like for Blackfin. Another reason for separation could be access control, i.e. granting some arch maintainer exclusive access to a tree. And for I-pipe support based on vendor-specific board patches, maintained by people "out-of-tree", we will then have the core + the mainline repository to cherry-pick I-pipe changes, helping to build I-pipe patches "from scratch" - when really required. Jan --------------enig39BDB8E1EEF4E2501716D3FA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFcttUniDOoMHTA+kRAineAJ924uOfZRQpqFvaO5TCdzD5iDi40ACeMYwB YiCFP5HIWcuuNQWZq9rUZnc= =b8vM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig39BDB8E1EEF4E2501716D3FA--