From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cort Dougan Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:15:26 -0700 To: Tom Rini Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Support for Arctic platform (405LP based) Message-ID: <20021215121526.M30941@duath.fsmlabs.com> References: <20021213043628.GI21319@zax.zax> <20021212215126.V23952@duath.fsmlabs.com> <20021213151808.GI19456@opus.bloom.county> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20021213151808.GI19456@opus.bloom.county>; from trini@kernel.crashing.org on Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 08:18:08AM -0700 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: How about killing the _2_4_devel tree? When I created it I want it to be a playground for stabilizing then moving things over to 2_4 failry quickly. It seems to have become the defacto "want board X, you better use _2_4_devel" tree. When I went looking for a working 4xx tree recently I had to write a script that would go through the last year of changesets in _2_4 and _2_4_devel and try to build them then stick the result into a file. That ran for 7 days on a 2.0Ghz Dual x86. Then, that only gave me a list of building trees. Knowing that there's only 1 tree would be much easier! I'll send you some wonderful New Mexico wine in exchange for your efforts! } One of my goals for winter break is to try and make the _devel tree less } divergent, at least w.r.t. 'classic' PPCs. I'm not sure if 4xx support } is in a stage yet that Paul is happy to move it to the _2_4 tree and } then on to Marcelo yet. } } -- } Tom Rini (TR1265) } http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ } ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/