From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <458936F5.2090006@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:13:25 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Adeos-main] Re: [RFC] git workflow References: <20061219213010.AF2A4352664@domain.hid> <45890361.7000709@domain.hid> <458925AA.6000404@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <458925AA.6000404@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: General discussion about Adeos List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wolfgang Grandegger Cc: adeos-main , Wolfgang Denk Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > A while ago I also played a bit with stgit and I was also not convinced, > that it's the right tool for our purpose. Nevertheless, I could reduce > the amount of git trees to manage (but I have to spend more time for a > better judgment). > > Currently I'm porting IPIPE v1.6 over arch/powerpc rising a few code > management issues. I started porting with i386-1.6-01 extracting the > common part from that patch and adapting the arch specify code for > arch/powerpc. Now IPIPE is at v1.6-02 and I realized various > modifications, also of the noarch part including some serious bug fixes > (local_irq_disable_head in main.c did hang my system). But now, there is > no easy way to update the noarch part as we deal with combined noarch + > arch patches. From a new git based code management system, I would > appreciate a separation of noarch and arch. This would make it easier to > keep the archs in sync with Philippe's reference implementation (for > x86). Any comments? IMHO, having the noarch and arch code separated is a nuisance. If there was a centralized ipipe branch for 2.6.19, you would simply synchronize your working copy with the server using the equivalent of "cvs/svn update" and "cvs/svn commit". On the other hand, if the arch and noarch code was separated, you would end up with twice as much updates and commits. -- Gilles Chanteperdrix