From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:33:50 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Tom Rini Cc: Larry McVoy , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: 2.5 development Message-ID: <20020215093350.K8353@work.bitmover.com> References: <15468.64269.8252.644104@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20020215085812.Z8353@work.bitmover.com> <20020215173210.GM2004@opus.bloom.county> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020215173210.GM2004@opus.bloom.county>; from trini@kernel.crashing.org on Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 10:32:10AM -0700 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 10:32:10AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 08:58:12AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 11:11:57PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > The current limitations of BK mean that we will not be able to take > > > changesets directly from the linuxppc-2.5 tree and send them to > > > Linus. > > > > You can export changes as a patch and import them. > > Which still isn't directly. :) It will catch most of the problems, but > if you export a patch with new files from one tree, import into another > and pull back into the original, you have a file conflict, yes? Yes, but that's not what we are talking about. We're talking about export/import from two "unrelated" BK trees. You can't pull unrelated trees at all. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/