Root keys on bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000 have changed

Root keys on bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000 have changed

[diekema_jon]

It appears that the BitKeeper repository at bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000
has changed.  What happened to the previous BK tree?  Was it replaced with the
2.4.0 baseline?

dell 112} cd ../fsmlabs-linux-2.5
dell 113} bk pull -z9
Nothing to pull.
dell 114} bk parent
Parent repository is bk://hq.fsmlabs.com:5005
dell 115} cd ../fsmlabs-linux-2.5
dell 116} bk parent
Parent repository is bk://hq.fsmlabs.com:5005
dell 117} bk pull -z9
Nothing to pull.
dell 118} cd ../fsmlabs-linux-2.4
dell 119} bk parent
Parent repository is bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000
dell 120} bk pull -z9
You are trying to pull from an unrelated package.  The root keys:
        cort@ftsoj.fsmlabs.com|ChangeSet|20010106071759|19793|5c81b698cda31832
        cort@medea.fsmlabs.com|ChangeSet|19991223032020|43000|42b4afcd8eebec4a
for the ChangeSet file do not match.
Please check the pathnames and try again.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Root keys on bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000 have changed

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:50:29AM -0500, diekema_jon wrote:

> It appears that the BitKeeper repository at bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000
> has changed.  What happened to the previous BK tree?  Was it replaced with the
> 2.4.0 baseline?

The former 2_3 tree has been replaced with a new 2_4 tree which currently does
_not_ have all of the fixes needed for PPC.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Root keys on bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000 have changed

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <20010106104711.D1400@opus.bloom.county> you wrote:
>
> > It appears that the BitKeeper repository at bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000
> > has changed.  What happened to the previous BK tree?  Was it replaced with the
> > 2.4.0 baseline?
>
> The former 2_3 tree has been replaced with a new 2_4 tree which currently does
> _not_ have all of the fixes needed for PPC.

Is there some place where such decisions are discussed  or  at  least
announced?

Things like that hit my with surprise again and again (and  obviously
not only me).

A few days ago Steven Hanley <sjh@wibble.net> asked for the currently
active devel tree. The question has not been answered yet.

I really would appreciate a summary about the current  state  of  the
different source trees.

Any comment from the Powers That Be?

Wolfgang Denk

--
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked  some-
thing.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Root keys on bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000 have changed

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:39:59PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <20010106104711.D1400@opus.bloom.county> you wrote:
> >
> > > It appears that the BitKeeper repository at bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000
> > > has changed.  What happened to the previous BK tree?  Was it replaced with the
> > > 2.4.0 baseline?
> >
> > The former 2_3 tree has been replaced with a new 2_4 tree which currently does
> > _not_ have all of the fixes needed for PPC.
>
> Is there some place where such decisions are discussed or at least announced?

Formally? Nope.  You just got the announcement. :)

> Things like that hit my with surprise again and again (and  obviously
> not only me).

Hey, it supprised me this morning to find out it had changed.  But it was also
expected.  2.3 is dead, it's now 2.4.

> A few days ago Steven Hanley <sjh@wibble.net> asked for the currently
> active devel tree. The question has not been answered yet.

Active devel for what?  The 2_5 tree (I'm sure if you search the -dev archives
there's a few pointers to it, bk://bk.fsmlabs.com:5005 is where the unstable
stuff happens, before moving to a stable tree.

> I really would appreciate a summary about the current  state  of  the
> different source trees.

Sure:
linuxppc_2_3 - "Dead", it still exists on the server, but it's going away.
linuxppc_2_4 - Where 2_3 used to be.  It doesn't compile at the moment, but it
will later today / tomorrow (I'm testing it right now).
linuxppc_2_5 - Same old unstable dev tree, still port 5005

> Any comment from the Powers That Be?

I don't know if I count, I just commit stuff :)

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Root keys on bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000 have changed

[Cort Dougan]

} Cort Dougan wrote:
} >
} > } Is there some place where such decisions are discussed  or  at  least
} > } announced?
} >
} > The closed list for read/write access people to those trees.  I can setup a
} > mailing list, or send the emails to this (or another) mailing list if
} > people are actually interested.
}
} Yes please, somewhere.  People are interested....

I'll have something setup in a few days for people to subscribe to, then.
I'll send more info to this list when I have it setup.


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Root keys on bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000 have changed

[Cort Dougan]

} It appears that the BitKeeper repository at bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000
} has changed.  What happened to the previous BK tree?  Was it replaced with the
} 2.4.0 baseline?

Yup.  The 5000 and 5001 trees are completely new.  You need to reclone.
Sorry about the abrupt change, it mirrors the abrupt and poorly timed
appearance of 2.4.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Root keys on bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000 have changed

[Gabriel Paubert]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Cort Dougan wrote:

>
> } It appears that the BitKeeper repository at bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000
> } has changed.  What happened to the previous BK tree?  Was it replaced with the
> } 2.4.0 baseline?
>
> Yup.  The 5000 and 5001 trees are completely new.  You need to reclone.
> Sorry about the abrupt change, it mirrors the abrupt and poorly timed
> appearance of 2.4.

Nice, I have a copy of the 2.3 tree with my own patches which are quite a
long list of changes and merges. Recloning is _not_ an option...

Fortunately I was still using copy of Linus tree in my own repositories
which I maintain personnally as my main development branch. I was
seriously considering switching to the fsmlabs bk trees, now it will never
happen, ever...

	Gabriel.


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Root keys on bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000 have changed

[Cort Dougan]

} Nice, I have a copy of the 2.3 tree with my own patches which are quite a
} long list of changes and merges. Recloning is _not_ an option...
}
} Fortunately I was still using copy of Linus tree in my own repositories
} which I maintain personnally as my main development branch. I was
} seriously considering switching to the fsmlabs bk trees, now it will never
} happen, ever...

Changes from 2.2 to 2.3 and from 2.3 to 2.4 will not be effortless changes,
with or without any revision control.  Each version is a different
repository and that's not going to change.  I'm happy to see you didn't
start using the trees before you realized this (and had to put work in on
maintaining code).  I'm also glad to not have you bring unreasonable
expectations to our development tree.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/