From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:32:17 +0100 To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Sven Luther , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ? Message-ID: <20040112073217.GC20938@iliana> References: <20040110084155.GA19817@iliana> <16385.63143.132872.395486@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <16385.63143.132872.395486@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> From: Sven Luther Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:21:43PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Sven Luther writes: > > > Last year, there was linuxppc_2_4 and the -benh tree. But since december > > 24, this tree doesn't seem to be touched anymore, and a new linuxppc-2.4 > > tree is used. > > The linuxppc_2_4* trees were set up before Marcelo moved over to using > BitKeeper to maintain his 2.4 tree. As such, the linuxppc_2_4* trees > are not descendents of Marcelo's tree, according to BK, and are > updated by applying patches to the linux_2_4 tree, which then get > pulled from there into linuxppc_2_4, and from there into > linuxppc_2_4_devel and linuxppc_2_4_benh. > > Now that Marcelo is using BK, this process means extra unnecessary > work. Also, there are problems in those trees that have accumulated > over the years and that can't be solved in any simple way - there are > tag conflicts which keep popping up, and files have been renamed, > which gets confusing when changes made upstream to > arch/ppc/boot/Makefile get applied by BK to > arch/ppc/boot/prep/Makefile in the linuxppc_2_4 tree, since BK thinks > they are the same file. > > The linuxppc-2.4 tree is a descendent of Marcelo's tree, and as such > we can pull changes that Marcelo makes in his tree directly into the > linuxppc-2.4 tree. Ok, thanks for the explanation. Maybe i missed the mail, but if not, it would have been cool to announce this clearly, so people don't get surprised. > > Are we supposed to move to the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and if so, what is > > the rationale behind this change. > > The idea of the linuxppc-2.4 tree is that it would stay closer to > Marcelo's tree, which would make my job in sending updates to Marcelo > easier. > > In fact, for any substantial body of work which you want to have me > send to Marcelo, the best thing is to create a clone of Marcelo's > linux-2.4 tree, check your changes into that, and make it available > for me to pull from. I can then pull from that and push the > changeset(s) into the tree that Marcelo pulls from. That tree can > then also be pulled into the linuxppc-2.4 tree to make the changes > available there before Marcelo pulls them. Ok. > > Furthermore, 2.4.24 was released, and the linuxppc-2.4 now contains > > TAG: v2.4.24, and a bit later there is a Changeset marked as "Import > > 2.4.24 final tree". There used to be TAGS like TAG: v2.4.23_linuxppc_2_4 > > which i used to take snapshots for releasing debian powerpc kernel > > packages. Will there still be those, did they simply get forgotten, > > should i sync with the v2.4.24 tags, or am i missing something. > > 2.4.24 was a bit strange. Marcelo was doing the 2.4.24-pre series as > usual, but then released a 2.4.24 final with just a few changes from > 2.4.23, and transferred all the changes that he had been accumulating > in 2.4.24-pre into 2.4.25-pre. The linuxppc_2_4* trees haven't been > updated to reflect that yet. Ok, anyway linuxppc_2_4 is supposed to be dead. But my point was, from which TAG should i extract kernels from the linuxppc-2.4 to make debian packages ? I tried the v2.4.24 tag, which seemed ok, but the version was still 2.4.24-rc1. I guess this was a problem due to the haste of the 2.4.24 release or something, but it would be nice if it was clear which tag we should export. > What Marcelo did in his tree is to create a branch off the 2.4.23 > release, checked in a few patches and then tagged that as 2.4.24. He > then pulled those changes back into the main trunk (so to speak, BK > doesn't really have the concept of a "main trunk") and then released > 2.4.25-pre4. Ok. > So far we haven't been tagging the points at which we merge Marcelo's > tree into linuxppc-2.4. The linuxppc-2.4 tree will have Marcelo's > tags in it but those tags will be the same as in Marcelo's tree. So ? > Development in 2.4 should be pretty much coming to a close, with all > new development being done in 2.6 now. The linuxppc_2_4_devel tree > will stay around for historical reference but I would prefer not to > see new stuff go in there. Yep, but 2.4 will still be used as the basis for distributions kernels for some time to come, especially for debian, as i doubt we will be ableto move to 2.6 in the current state of debian-installer development, and probably 2.6 is not yet mature enough on all the 11 arch we officially support. Come to mind, the linuxppc-2.4 tree probably will not support newer pmacs, which means i should instead track the -benh tree or something. > > BTW, while we were at renaming stuffs, would it not have been better to > > use linuxppc-2.6 instead of the linuxppc-2.5 we currently have ? > > That would be a good idea. :) Friendly, Sven Luther ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/