Re: linuxppc_2_5 source tree (and others)

["Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>]

Tom Rini writes:
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 06:38:02PM +1000, Murray Jensen wrote:

>> Hi, I see that the linuxppc_2_5 bk tree has disappeared from fsmlabs, and
>> has been replaced with a linuxppc_2_4_devel tree. Could someone in the
>> know please post a quick update what this means, and perhaps what the
>> future holds wrt 2.4/2.5 linuxppc (embedded)?
>
> I was hoping Cort would mention this here, but 2_5 has been 'dead' for a
> while and is finally gone too.  There's still mirrors of it however.
> It will exist again, but when 2.5.0 appears and will be based off the
> linux_2_4 tree or so.  Right now 2_4_devel isn't up to date wrt 8xx/4xx, and
> some new boards 2_5 had.  I'm working on it. :)

Oh, lovely.

I'm very glad to have ignored this BitKeeper nonsense for
the most part then. I knew there was a good reason to rely
on the one true source tree from Linus. I'm not screwed like
all the people working from linuxppc_2_5 are.

On the other hand, I had to do my own PowerCore 6750 VME port
for the 2.4 kernel. That sucked. It would be nice if everyone
had the decency to submit stuff to Linus in a way that he finds
acceptable, rather than hoarding source code in obscure places
that are only accessible via non-standard non-free software.

So, how did _you_ know that 2_5 has been 'dead' for a while?

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