Re: linuxppc_2_5 source tree (and others)

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

Cort Dougan writes:

> You should lose the chip from your shoulder if you want assistance.
> _2_5 was never listed that way, it was an internal tree only.

I'm sorry I was rude. Please try to imagine what PowerPC Linux
development must look like to someone who does not happen to
work for FSM Labs, Montevista, or BitKeeper.

>} I nearly fell into the trap. Just recently, 2_5 was listed as
>} being where the latest development happens. It certainly looked
>} that way too, with support for more boards than 2_4 had.
>} Until just this morning, I was thinking I ought to use 2_5!
>
> No-one should have used it and the people telling you that you
> should have used it shouldn't have done that.

It had 6750 support, and 2_4 didn't. I don't see why this
situation would ever be created, but anyway, clearly 2_5
was the better tree until it disappeared.

If you need to do experimental work without disturbing the rest
of the 2_4 code, you should be able to create a branch.

> Get on the list and you won't be caught unaware.  The _2_5 tree was
> never a "for outside use" tree.  Others were misinforming people, I
> know.  That was unfortuante but the _2_4_devel tree and the _2_4
> trees are both public and will not be "dead ends".  All changes that
> Linus will accept (not a simple job) do find their way to Linus
> eventually.

1. why was there a public tree that was not "for outside use"

2. how can you have two trees, neither of which is a dead end?

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