From: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:04:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040113170428.GC10912@stop.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16385.63143.132872.395486@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
FWIW, I'm leaning towards _not_ moving the linuxppc_2_4* and related
trees past where they are not just becaue I have this feeling that
because of what Marcelo did, it'll be an even larger headache than
normal.
OTOH, we could just skip 2.4.24 final and move from 2.4.24-pre3 to
2.4.25-pre5 (w/ the mremap fix tossed in).
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-13 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-10 8:41 linuxppc trees, what is going on ? Sven Luther
2004-01-12 1:21 ` Paul Mackerras
2004-01-12 7:32 ` Sven Luther
2004-01-13 17:06 ` Tom Rini
2004-01-13 17:18 ` Sven Luther
2004-01-13 17:35 ` Tom Rini
2004-01-14 8:55 ` Sven Luther
2004-01-18 12:21 ` Sven Luther
2004-01-19 15:29 ` Tom Rini
2004-01-19 15:47 ` Sven Luther
2004-01-19 15:58 ` Tom Rini
2004-01-19 16:38 ` Sven Luther
2004-01-19 16:48 ` Tom Rini
2004-01-19 17:07 ` Sven Luther
2004-01-19 17:22 ` Tom Rini
2004-01-19 17:30 ` Sven Luther
2004-01-19 17:42 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2004-01-19 17:48 ` Tom Rini
2004-01-19 17:49 ` Sven Luther
2004-01-19 17:53 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2004-03-15 10:31 ` linuxppc latest ? Armin Schindler
2004-03-16 6:38 ` Kumar Gala
2004-01-19 17:43 ` linuxppc trees, what is going on ? Tom Rini
[not found] ` <20040123154058.GA15605@work.bitmover.com>
2004-01-23 15:49 ` Tom Rini
2004-01-13 17:04 ` Tom Rini [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040113170428.GC10912@stop.crashing.org \
--to=trini@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=sven.luther@wanadoo.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).