[RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[Thomas Gleixner]

We announced some time ago:

"The MTD support for 2.4 will be moved to a maintainence only mode in
the near future. This will relieve us from a lot of compatibility crap
and lets us concentrate on the further development in the 2.6 series."

The latests symlink changes broke 2.4 and I dont see any reason to keep
this stupid game up.

The last CVS version which might work on 2.4 is before
Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:00:00 +0000  (11:00 CET)

I strongly vote to branch of a mtd-2.4-latest-devel in CVS from said
point and then remove the whole 2.4 crap from CVS head. 

If somebody feels responsible to keep this branch up to date, I neither
care nor object.

I'm really tired of this backwards compability stuff and the complaints
on the maillist.

tglx

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 10:14 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I strongly vote to branch of a mtd-2.4-latest-devel in CVS from said
> point and then remove the whole 2.4 crap from CVS head. 

Nah. There's already a 2.4 branch. If someone wants to keep -HEAD
working on 2.4, that's OK, but I don't want a new branch for it. If
nobody keeps it working, just remove the 2.4-specific files.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 10:28 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 10:14 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I strongly vote to branch of a mtd-2.4-latest-devel in CVS from said
> > point and then remove the whole 2.4 crap from CVS head. 
> 
> Nah. There's already a 2.4 branch. If someone wants to keep -HEAD
> working on 2.4, that's OK, but I don't want a new branch for it. 

I had no intention to keep that branch alive. I just wanted to preserve
the current state. Sure we also can release a final MTD-2.4-not-
guaranteed-to-work-2005-03-01-10:00-tarball.

> If nobody keeps it working, just remove the 2.4-specific files.

If nobody objects within 24 hours, I will do so.

tglx

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:44 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I had no intention to keep that branch alive. I just wanted to
> preserve the current state. Sure we also can release a final MTD-2.4-
> not-guaranteed-to-work-2005-03-01-10:00-tarball.

If you don't need it alive, you don't need a branch. You don't even need
a tag -- 'cvs up -D2005-03-01'.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 10:46 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:44 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I had no intention to keep that branch alive. I just wanted to
> > preserve the current state. Sure we also can release a final MTD-2.4-
> > not-guaranteed-to-work-2005-03-01-10:00-tarball.
> 
> If you don't need it alive, you don't need a branch. You don't even need
> a tag -- 'cvs up -D2005-03-01'.

I have zero interest to keep it alive.

tglx

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:53 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > If you don't need it alive, you don't need a branch. You don't even need
> > a tag -- 'cvs up -D2005-03-01'.
> 
> I have zero interest to keep it alive.

Then we have no need of a branch. Just remove the files.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:00 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:53 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > If you don't need it alive, you don't need a branch. You don't even need
> > > a tag -- 'cvs up -D2005-03-01'.
> > 
> > I have zero interest to keep it alive.
> 
> Then we have no need of a branch. Just remove the files.

Can we at least preserve the history in same way? AFAIK is CVS remove a
non reversible operation.

tglx

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 12:03 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Can we at least preserve the history in same way? AFAIK is CVS remove
> a non reversible operation.

CVS remove is reversible. Just check out a version before the dead one,
by date or by revision number.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[Steven Scholz]

David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:53 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
>>>If you don't need it alive, you don't need a branch. You don't even need
>>>a tag -- 'cvs up -D2005-03-01'.
>>
>>I have zero interest to keep it alive.
> 
> 
> Then we have no need of a branch. Just remove the files.

Does that mean that there will be _no_ " maintainence only mode" for 2.4?

It's ok ig there are no new features for 2.4. But bugs should still be fixed...

If there already is a 2.4 branch, then this could be used for that.

Just my 0.01 Euro.

--
Steven

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 12:29 +0100, Steven Scholz wrote:
> Does that mean that there will be _no_ " maintainence only mode" for 2.4?
> 
> It's ok ig there are no new features for 2.4. But bugs should still be fixed...
> 
> If there already is a 2.4 branch, then this could be used for that.

The existing 2.4 branch is the stuff, which is in 2.4

tglx

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 12:29 +0100, Steven Scholz wrote:
> Does that mean that there will be _no_ " maintainence only mode" for
> 2.4?

2.4 has been in maintenance only mode for years already. 

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Steven Scholz wrote:

> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:53 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> > > > If you don't need it alive, you don't need a branch. You don't even need
> > > > a tag -- 'cvs up -D2005-03-01'.
> > > 
> > > I have zero interest to keep it alive.
> > 
> > 
> > Then we have no need of a branch. Just remove the files.
> 
> Does that mean that there will be _no_ " maintainence only mode" for 2.4?

Depends if _you_ or someone else decides to volunteer for the task.
do you?  I don't.

> It's ok ig there are no new features for 2.4. But bugs should still be
> fixed...

It just won't happen magically.


Nicolas

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:48 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Does that mean that there will be _no_ " maintainence only mode" for
> > 2.4?
> 
> Depends if _you_ or someone else decides to volunteer for the task.
> do you?  I don't.

I _am_ maintaining JFFS2 in the 2.4 kernel, even to the extent of
backporting the __wait_on_freeing_inode() stuff from 2.6 to fix the
problems with simultaneous read_inode() and clear_inode(). But I'm not
adding new features, so NAND flash isn't supported in 2.4.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[Steven Scholz]

David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:48 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
>>>Does that mean that there will be _no_ " maintainence only mode" for
>>>2.4?
>>
>>Depends if _you_ or someone else decides to volunteer for the task.
>>do you?  I don't.
> 
> 
> I _am_ maintaining JFFS2 in the 2.4 kernel, even to the extent of
> backporting the __wait_on_freeing_inode() stuff from 2.6 to fix the
> problems with simultaneous read_inode() and clear_inode(). But I'm not
> adding new features, so NAND flash isn't supported in 2.4.

How about SUMMARY patch then? ;-)
Seriously, since JFFS3 will not get into the 2.4 stuff Ferenc's SUMMARY patch 
would be nice!

And BTW: How do I get the 2.4 branch from CVS?

--
Steven

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 08:31 +0100, Steven Scholz wrote:
> How about SUMMARY patch then? ;-)

$DEITY no. The 2.4 branch doesn't even have the mount time improvements
from a couple of years ago. It isn't having summary support.

> And BTW: How do I get the 2.4 branch from CVS?

cvs up -r jffs2-2_4-branch

Or just look at Marcelo's current kernel. Most of what I've done
recently (i.e. in the last year or so) to fix JFFS2 bugs in 2.4 has been
in linux/fs/inode.c, not in linux/fs/jffs2/

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 08:31 +0100, Steven Scholz wrote:
> How about SUMMARY patch then? ;-)
> Seriously, since JFFS3 will not get into the 2.4 stuff Ferenc's SUMMARY patch 
> would be nice!

That's exactly the point. Next week somebody comes up with another nice
feature and you or somebody else will ask "how about that ?".

> And BTW: How do I get the 2.4 branch from CVS?

David and I agreed not to have a 2.4 devel branch exactly for that
reason. You can get the latest working version by cvs up -D2005-03-01 or
whatever date will be the deadline.

tglx

Re: [RFD] Move 2.4 code out from CVS head

[Artem B. Bityuckiy]

On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 08:31 +0100, Steven Scholz wrote:
> How about SUMMARY patch then? ;-)
> Seriously, since JFFS3 will not get into the 2.4 stuff Ferenc's SUMMARY patch 
> would be nice!
Ferenc's Summaries are in JFFS3.

> 
> And BTW: How do I get the 2.4 branch from CVS?

IIUC, CVS head should work for 2.4 well. I've commited the symlink
problem fix.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem B. Bityuckiy,
St.-Petersburg, Russia.