From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: linuxppc_2_5 source tree (and others) In-Reply-To: Message from Cort Dougan of "Thu, 10 May 2001 17:11:14 CST." <20010510171114.C1595@ftsoj.fsmlabs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:31:04 +1000 Message-ID: <18779.989548264@msa.cmst.csiro.au> From: Murray Jensen Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, 10 May 2001 17:11:14 -0600, Cort Dougan writes: >Believe me, I know what it looks like. I'm trying to clean things up but >it's a large problem. I do appreciate your criticisms though, they are >useful in finding the worst parts. And we appreciate your efforts - thank you. >Perhaps I can clear things up a bit. I wanted _2_4 stable so that it >didn't get brand-new (untested and buggy) code. I created _2_5 as a >work-area for us so people could push changes there, test them internally >and work out any problems. We could then move them over to _2_4 quickly >when the changes were stable. Unfortunately, people started giving out the >_2_5 tree and telling people to use it. > >So, to solve that problem I created _2_4_devel so that we could get outside >testing and let users chose which kernel they wanted (brand-new features or >very stable and tested). This is fair enough. I just didn't know what was going on. I have joined the linuxppc-commit mailing list so I should be better informed in future. Just as an aside, might this mean that it would be easier to get bk write access to the _2_4_devel tree? (slight smiley :-). >Unfortunately we need multiple trees since branches won't do the job for >us. Lines of development will, though. The people at BitMover and working >on that feature of BitKeeper for us already. Except it looks like you only get LODs if you pay. The free version won't have LODs - and a number of other nifty features (as far as I can tell). >When the real 2.5.0 comes out (when Linus creates it) I'll create another >tree, linuxppc_2_5. I made a mistake in naming our experimental tree >linuxppc_2_5, this tree will be the real linuxppc_2_5. We'll probably have >a linuxppc_2_5 and linuxppc_2_5_devel but that's still to be decided (it >will probably be decided by need). I actually guessed this was what had happened when I checked on kernel.org and saw that there wasn't an official linux 2.5 yet (just some pre release patches). >If the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree doesn't work for you let me know what >trouble you're having and I'll try to help. Thanks for your response - you have cleared the matter up as far as I am concerned. I feel much better about it all now - I will probably switch to the _2_4_devel tree. Cheers! Murray... -- Murray Jensen, CSIRO Manufacturing Sci & Tech, Phone: +61 3 9662 7763 Locked Bag No. 9, Preston, Vic, 3072, Australia. Fax: +61 3 9662 7853 Internet: Murray.Jensen@cmst.csiro.au (old address was mjj@mlb.dmt.csiro.au) ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/