From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mackerras MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <15869.5023.549830.146265@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:43:27 +1100 To: Cort Dougan Cc: Tom Rini , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Support for Arctic platform (405LP based) In-Reply-To: <20021215121526.M30941@duath.fsmlabs.com> References: <20021213043628.GI21319@zax.zax> <20021212215126.V23952@duath.fsmlabs.com> <20021213151808.GI19456@opus.bloom.county> <20021215121526.M30941@duath.fsmlabs.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Cort Dougan writes: > How about killing the _2_4_devel tree? When I created it I want it to be a > playground for stabilizing then moving things over to 2_4 failry quickly. > It seems to have become the defacto "want board X, you better use > _2_4_devel" tree. Now that Marcelo is using BK, what I would really like to do is to kill both the linuxppc_2_4 and linuxppc_2_4_devel trees and move to a tree that is a child of Marcelo's linux-2.4 tree. > When I went looking for a working 4xx tree recently I had to write a script > that would go through the last year of changesets in _2_4 and _2_4_devel > and try to build them then stick the result into a file. That ran for 7 > days on a 2.0Ghz Dual x86. Then, that only gave me a list of building > trees. Knowing that there's only 1 tree would be much easier! 4xx in particular is a problem because I'm not convinced about the approach that has been taken for some of the 4xx infrastructure. The ocp stuff seems a lot more complicated than it needs to be, for instance. There is no particular reason that I can see why the 8xx stuff in 2_4_devel shouldn't go to Marcelo for 2.4.21. Paul. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/