From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:50:16 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Larry McVoy Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: 2.5 development Message-ID: <20020215185016.GQ2004@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> <20020215173619.GN2004@opus.bloom.county> <20020215104433.C28735@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020215104433.C28735@work.bitmover.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 10:44:33AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > 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? > > Yes, if they are all clones from the same original tree, they are all > related. The way to tell is to run "bk identity" in each tree, if that > output is the same, you may pull between them. > > I thought Paul was talking about taking changes from the tree Cort created > and putting it the tree Linus created. Nope. We're still using those for 2.2 and 2.4, but the official tree for 2.5 (since it makes our lives easier too :)) So are out of order changesets on the horizon? -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/