From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:36:19 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Larry McVoy Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: 2.5 development Message-ID: <20020215173619.GN2004@opus.bloom.county> References: <15468.64269.8252.644104@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20020215085812.Z8353@work.bitmover.com> <20020215173210.GM2004@opus.bloom.county> <20020215093350.K8353@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020215093350.K8353@work.bitmover.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 09:33:50AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > 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. These are related trees. For 2.5.x all of the PPC trees are related to the official Linus 2.5.x bk tree. Something like: linux-2.5 -> {for-linus-*, linuxppc-2.5}. Since linuxppc-2.5 and for-linus-ppc are both children of linux-2.5, shouldn't they be related? -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/