linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Sven Luther]

Hello,

I am confused about what is going on with the different 2.4 powerpc
trees.

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.

Are we supposed to move to the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and if so, what is
the rationale behind this change.

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.

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 ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Paul Mackerras]

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Paul.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Sven Luther]

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/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:

> 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.

There is no tag you can use to do this.  Just like how 'v2.4.24' in the
old linuxppc_2_4* trees would get you 2.4.24 w/o any PPC changes, the
same will happen here.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:06:31AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> There is no tag you can use to do this.  Just like how 'v2.4.24' in the
> old linuxppc_2_4* trees would get you 2.4.24 w/o any PPC changes, the
> same will happen here.

This is getting more complicated ...

Ok, let's say, tomorrow i need to release a debian 2.4.24 powerpc
package, what should i take for this, and which tag/date/whatever should
i use.

Upto now, i was using the linuxppc_2_4 tree, and the corresponding
linuxppc tag. I had the impression from Paul's mail that i should now
take the linuxppc-2.4 tree and the v2.4.24 tag, but from what you tell,
this will include less stuff than what i previously did.

Also, there is the fact that modern powermac will most probably need
stuff from the -benh tree, and that it would be maybe nicer for me to
follow that tree instead.

Ok, back to RTC code now, still wondering how the OF parsing stuff
works, not convinced about reading prom.c and prom.h.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:18:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:06:31AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > There is no tag you can use to do this.  Just like how 'v2.4.24' in the
> > old linuxppc_2_4* trees would get you 2.4.24 w/o any PPC changes, the
> > same will happen here.
>
> This is getting more complicated ...
>
> Ok, let's say, tomorrow i need to release a debian 2.4.24 powerpc
> package, what should i take for this, and which tag/date/whatever should
> i use.

First, do a bk help changes.  I mention this since I believe the
behavior of -e will change, or has changed.  Then do a 'bk changes' such
that you see all merge changesets.  Then just find that one that
corresponds to when the merge of Marcelo's tree that contained at least
v2.4.24 came in.  If there are changes after v2.4.24, you will have to
back these out from your patch manually (filterdiff or interdiff can probably
help here).

Paul, do you want to start adding tags to the linuxppc-2.4 tree?

> Also, there is the fact that modern powermac will most probably need
> stuff from the -benh tree, and that it would be maybe nicer for me to
> follow that tree instead.

The same applies here, except it's when linuxppc-2.4 that has v2.4.24 is
merged in.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:35:14AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:18:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:06:31AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > There is no tag you can use to do this.  Just like how 'v2.4.24' in the
> > > old linuxppc_2_4* trees would get you 2.4.24 w/o any PPC changes, the
> > > same will happen here.
> >
> > This is getting more complicated ...
> >
> > Ok, let's say, tomorrow i need to release a debian 2.4.24 powerpc
> > package, what should i take for this, and which tag/date/whatever should
> > i use.
>
> First, do a bk help changes.  I mention this since I believe the
> behavior of -e will change, or has changed.  Then do a 'bk changes' such
> that you see all merge changesets.  Then just find that one that
> corresponds to when the merge of Marcelo's tree that contained at least
> v2.4.24 came in.  If there are changes after v2.4.24, you will have to
> back these out from your patch manually (filterdiff or interdiff can probably
> help here).

Yep, i did this already in the past, didn't know about -e though, will
look.

> Paul, do you want to start adding tags to the linuxppc-2.4 tree?

Yes, that would be really practical. It would be really practical, and
it would not cost all that much in time for putting these tags, while
getting the right changeset to extract is time consuming and
error-prone. That said, maybe 2.4.24 was exceptional. But still, tags
would be welcome.

> > Also, there is the fact that modern powermac will most probably need
> > stuff from the -benh tree, and that it would be maybe nicer for me to
> > follow that tree instead.
>
> The same applies here, except it's when linuxppc-2.4 that has v2.4.24 is
> merged in.

Yep.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:35:14AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:18:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:06:31AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > There is no tag you can use to do this.  Just like how 'v2.4.24' in the
> > > old linuxppc_2_4* trees would get you 2.4.24 w/o any PPC changes, the
> > > same will happen here.
> >
> > This is getting more complicated ...
> >
> > Ok, let's say, tomorrow i need to release a debian 2.4.24 powerpc
> > package, what should i take for this, and which tag/date/whatever should
> > i use.
>
> First, do a bk help changes.  I mention this since I believe the
> behavior of -e will change, or has changed.  Then do a 'bk changes' such
> that you see all merge changesets.  Then just find that one that
> corresponds to when the merge of Marcelo's tree that contained at least
> v2.4.24 came in.  If there are changes after v2.4.24, you will have to
> back these out from your patch manually (filterdiff or interdiff can probably
> help here).
>
> Paul, do you want to start adding tags to the linuxppc-2.4 tree?

I am trully baffled here, i don't know what is going on, but then maybe
it is my little comprehension of how bk works.

I did pull the linux-2.4 tree, and exported the v2.4.24 tag. I did the
same for the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and diffed the two exported trees. Both
were exactly the same.

Very strange, and probably due to the non-linear way the bk changesets
are handled.

Could it be possible to add proper tags in the future to the
linuxppc-2.4 tree ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:21:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:35:14AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:18:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:06:31AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > There is no tag you can use to do this.  Just like how 'v2.4.24' in the
> > > > old linuxppc_2_4* trees would get you 2.4.24 w/o any PPC changes, the
> > > > same will happen here.
> > >
> > > This is getting more complicated ...
> > >
> > > Ok, let's say, tomorrow i need to release a debian 2.4.24 powerpc
> > > package, what should i take for this, and which tag/date/whatever should
> > > i use.
> >
> > First, do a bk help changes.  I mention this since I believe the
> > behavior of -e will change, or has changed.  Then do a 'bk changes' such
> > that you see all merge changesets.  Then just find that one that
> > corresponds to when the merge of Marcelo's tree that contained at least
> > v2.4.24 came in.  If there are changes after v2.4.24, you will have to
> > back these out from your patch manually (filterdiff or interdiff can probably
> > help here).
> >
> > Paul, do you want to start adding tags to the linuxppc-2.4 tree?
>
> I am trully baffled here, i don't know what is going on, but then maybe
> it is my little comprehension of how bk works.
>
> I did pull the linux-2.4 tree, and exported the v2.4.24 tag. I did the
> same for the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and diffed the two exported trees. Both
> were exactly the same.

That is correct. A tag has the same values (set of ChangeSets)
regardless of the tree (simpilication).

> Could it be possible to add proper tags in the future to the
> linuxppc-2.4 tree ?

If I do any updates, I'll try and remember to do this.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:29:54AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > I did pull the linux-2.4 tree, and exported the v2.4.24 tag. I did the
> > same for the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and diffed the two exported trees. Both
> > were exactly the same.
>
> That is correct. A tag has the same values (set of ChangeSets)
> regardless of the tree (simpilication).

Ok, how are you then supposed to make a diff of the powerpc relative
changes ? You use the changeset just above the merge or something ?
>
> > Could it be possible to add proper tags in the future to the
> > linuxppc-2.4 tree ?
>
> If I do any updates, I'll try and remember to do this.

Thanks.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:47:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:29:54AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > I did pull the linux-2.4 tree, and exported the v2.4.24 tag. I did the
> > > same for the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and diffed the two exported trees. Both
> > > were exactly the same.
> >
> > That is correct. A tag has the same values (set of ChangeSets)
> > regardless of the tree (simpilication).
>
> Ok, how are you then supposed to make a diff of the powerpc relative
> changes ? You use the changeset just above the merge or something ?

The process I described about (that you snipped) is how you find the
ChangeSet of when 'linux-2.4' at a certain point is merged into
'linuxppc-2.4', and that ChangeSet will point to something like 2.4.24 +
powerpc changes.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:58:01AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:47:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:29:54AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > I did pull the linux-2.4 tree, and exported the v2.4.24 tag. I did the
> > > > same for the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and diffed the two exported trees. Both
> > > > were exactly the same.
> > >
> > > That is correct. A tag has the same values (set of ChangeSets)
> > > regardless of the tree (simpilication).
> >
> > Ok, how are you then supposed to make a diff of the powerpc relative
> > changes ? You use the changeset just above the merge or something ?
>
> The process I described about (that you snipped) is how you find the
> ChangeSet of when 'linux-2.4' at a certain point is merged into
> 'linuxppc-2.4', and that ChangeSet will point to something like 2.4.24 +
> powerpc changes.

Yeah, but i am not sure i fully understand. In this case, bk changes in
linuxppc-2.4 yields :

ChangeSet@1.1058.1.312, 2004-01-04 19:34:56-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
  Import 2.4.24 final tree

ChangeSet@1.1058.1.311, 2004-01-04 19:32:02-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
  Cset exclude: laforge@netfilter.org|ChangeSet|20031204183256|31723

ChangeSet@1.1058.1.310, 2004-01-04 19:31:23-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
  Cset exclude: jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com|ChangeSet|20031213132008|01226

ChangeSet@1.1058.1.309, 2004-01-04 19:31:05-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
  Cset exclude: trini@mvista.com|ChangeSet|20031210203050|36304

ChangeSet@1.1058.1.308, 2004-01-04 19:28:46-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
  Cset exclude: bjorn.helgaas@hp.com|ChangeSet|20031218183339|13120

ChangeSet@1.1058.235.6, 2004-01-04 17:53:50-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
  Change EXTRAVERSION to 2.4.24-rc1
  TAG: v2.4.24
  TAG: v2.4.24-rc1

None of them seem related to when the linux-2.4 changeset got merged
into linuxppc-2.4.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:38:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:58:01AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:47:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:29:54AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > I did pull the linux-2.4 tree, and exported the v2.4.24 tag. I did the
> > > > > same for the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and diffed the two exported trees. Both
> > > > > were exactly the same.
> > > >
> > > > That is correct. A tag has the same values (set of ChangeSets)
> > > > regardless of the tree (simpilication).
> > >
> > > Ok, how are you then supposed to make a diff of the powerpc relative
> > > changes ? You use the changeset just above the merge or something ?
> >
> > The process I described about (that you snipped) is how you find the
> > ChangeSet of when 'linux-2.4' at a certain point is merged into
> > 'linuxppc-2.4', and that ChangeSet will point to something like 2.4.24 +
> > powerpc changes.
>
> Yeah, but i am not sure i fully understand. In this case, bk changes in
> linuxppc-2.4 yields :
>
> ChangeSet@1.1058.1.312, 2004-01-04 19:34:56-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
>   Import 2.4.24 final tree
>
> ChangeSet@1.1058.1.311, 2004-01-04 19:32:02-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
>   Cset exclude: laforge@netfilter.org|ChangeSet|20031204183256|31723
>
> ChangeSet@1.1058.1.310, 2004-01-04 19:31:23-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
>   Cset exclude: jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com|ChangeSet|20031213132008|01226
>
> ChangeSet@1.1058.1.309, 2004-01-04 19:31:05-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
>   Cset exclude: trini@mvista.com|ChangeSet|20031210203050|36304
>
> ChangeSet@1.1058.1.308, 2004-01-04 19:28:46-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
>   Cset exclude: bjorn.helgaas@hp.com|ChangeSet|20031218183339|13120
>
> ChangeSet@1.1058.235.6, 2004-01-04 17:53:50-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
>   Change EXTRAVERSION to 2.4.24-rc1
>   TAG: v2.4.24
>   TAG: v2.4.24-rc1
>
> None of them seem related to when the linux-2.4 changeset got merged
> into linuxppc-2.4.

You also get:
ChangeSet@1.1179.1.1, 2004-01-06 12:37:52-07:00, trini@kernel.crashing.org
  Merge in recent changes by hand.

Which is as close to 2.4.24 + powerpc changes as you're going to get,
automatically.  You can use 'bk export -tpatch' to back out the changes
which follow that you don't want.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:48:50AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:38:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:58:01AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:47:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:29:54AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > I did pull the linux-2.4 tree, and exported the v2.4.24 tag. I did the
> > > > > > same for the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and diffed the two exported trees. Both
> > > > > > were exactly the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is correct. A tag has the same values (set of ChangeSets)
> > > > > regardless of the tree (simpilication).
> > > >
> > > > Ok, how are you then supposed to make a diff of the powerpc relative
> > > > changes ? You use the changeset just above the merge or something ?
> > >
> > > The process I described about (that you snipped) is how you find the
> > > ChangeSet of when 'linux-2.4' at a certain point is merged into
> > > 'linuxppc-2.4', and that ChangeSet will point to something like 2.4.24 +
> > > powerpc changes.
> >
> > Yeah, but i am not sure i fully understand. In this case, bk changes in
> > linuxppc-2.4 yields :
> >
> > ChangeSet@1.1058.1.312, 2004-01-04 19:34:56-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> >   Import 2.4.24 final tree
> >
> > ChangeSet@1.1058.1.311, 2004-01-04 19:32:02-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> >   Cset exclude: laforge@netfilter.org|ChangeSet|20031204183256|31723
> >
> > ChangeSet@1.1058.1.310, 2004-01-04 19:31:23-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> >   Cset exclude: jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com|ChangeSet|20031213132008|01226
> >
> > ChangeSet@1.1058.1.309, 2004-01-04 19:31:05-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> >   Cset exclude: trini@mvista.com|ChangeSet|20031210203050|36304
> >
> > ChangeSet@1.1058.1.308, 2004-01-04 19:28:46-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> >   Cset exclude: bjorn.helgaas@hp.com|ChangeSet|20031218183339|13120
> >
> > ChangeSet@1.1058.235.6, 2004-01-04 17:53:50-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> >   Change EXTRAVERSION to 2.4.24-rc1
> >   TAG: v2.4.24
> >   TAG: v2.4.24-rc1
> >
> > None of them seem related to when the linux-2.4 changeset got merged
> > into linuxppc-2.4.
>
> You also get:
> ChangeSet@1.1179.1.1, 2004-01-06 12:37:52-07:00, trini@kernel.crashing.org
>   Merge in recent changes by hand.

Oh.

> Which is as close to 2.4.24 + powerpc changes as you're going to get,
> automatically.  You can use 'bk export -tpatch' to back out the changes
> which follow that you don't want.

Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
reference when getting feedback and such.

Anyway, i will see what i can do, thanks for your information, i think
now i understand what is going on.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:07:41PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:48:50AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:38:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:58:01AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:47:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:29:54AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > > I did pull the linux-2.4 tree, and exported the v2.4.24 tag. I did the
> > > > > > > same for the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and diffed the two exported trees. Both
> > > > > > > were exactly the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is correct. A tag has the same values (set of ChangeSets)
> > > > > > regardless of the tree (simpilication).
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, how are you then supposed to make a diff of the powerpc relative
> > > > > changes ? You use the changeset just above the merge or something ?
> > > >
> > > > The process I described about (that you snipped) is how you find the
> > > > ChangeSet of when 'linux-2.4' at a certain point is merged into
> > > > 'linuxppc-2.4', and that ChangeSet will point to something like 2.4.24 +
> > > > powerpc changes.
> > >
> > > Yeah, but i am not sure i fully understand. In this case, bk changes in
> > > linuxppc-2.4 yields :
> > >
> > > ChangeSet@1.1058.1.312, 2004-01-04 19:34:56-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> > >   Import 2.4.24 final tree
> > >
> > > ChangeSet@1.1058.1.311, 2004-01-04 19:32:02-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> > >   Cset exclude: laforge@netfilter.org|ChangeSet|20031204183256|31723
> > >
> > > ChangeSet@1.1058.1.310, 2004-01-04 19:31:23-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> > >   Cset exclude: jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com|ChangeSet|20031213132008|01226
> > >
> > > ChangeSet@1.1058.1.309, 2004-01-04 19:31:05-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> > >   Cset exclude: trini@mvista.com|ChangeSet|20031210203050|36304
> > >
> > > ChangeSet@1.1058.1.308, 2004-01-04 19:28:46-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> > >   Cset exclude: bjorn.helgaas@hp.com|ChangeSet|20031218183339|13120
> > >
> > > ChangeSet@1.1058.235.6, 2004-01-04 17:53:50-02:00, marcelo@logos.cnet
> > >   Change EXTRAVERSION to 2.4.24-rc1
> > >   TAG: v2.4.24
> > >   TAG: v2.4.24-rc1
> > >
> > > None of them seem related to when the linux-2.4 changeset got merged
> > > into linuxppc-2.4.
> >
> > You also get:
> > ChangeSet@1.1179.1.1, 2004-01-06 12:37:52-07:00, trini@kernel.crashing.org
> >   Merge in recent changes by hand.
>
> Oh.
>
> > Which is as close to 2.4.24 + powerpc changes as you're going to get,
> > automatically.  You can use 'bk export -tpatch' to back out the changes
> > which follow that you don't want.
>
> Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
> appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
> A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
> reference when getting feedback and such.

A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
corresponds to exactly that.

On the other hand, it's not that hard to decide which changes are
appropriate and which are not.  Using the real example of v2.4.24, all
of the changes inbetween are for generic things, or possibly ppc64.  All
of those can be backed out.
<hat=former LinuxPPC, Inc kernel packaging guy>
We all started digging into the kernel someplace :)
</hat>.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
> > appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
> > A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
> > reference when getting feedback and such.
>
> A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
> For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
> v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
> to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
> linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
> bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
> corresponds to exactly that.

Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ?

> On the other hand, it's not that hard to decide which changes are
> appropriate and which are not.  Using the real example of v2.4.24, all
> of the changes inbetween are for generic things, or possibly ppc64.  All
> of those can be backed out.

Yeah, but ideally, all distribution maintainers should use the same set
of changelogs for what should be considered

> <hat=former LinuxPPC, Inc kernel packaging guy>
> We all started digging into the kernel someplace :)
> </hat>.

Yeah. The problem i have is that most people which use my debian
packages use pmac, and i can't test it on those, since i don't have this
hardware. Oh, well, now that i understand things better, i will try to
go sorting the changesets or something. But still, a tag would be
welcome.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
> > > appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
> > > A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
> > > reference when getting feedback and such.
> >
> > A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
> > For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
> > v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
> > to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
> > linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
> > bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
> > corresponds to exactly that.
>
> Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ?

You can still clone Marcelo's tree at the label you want, and pull in
changes from the `old' (from last week) ppc tree, and label that.

I.e. if today Marcelo is at 2.4.25-pre6, while the ppc tree is at
2.4.25-pre1, and you want 2.4.25-pre2 for ppc, you can do this:
  - clone Marcelo's tree at 2.4.25-pre2
  - pull from ppc 2.4.25-pre1

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:42:13PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
> > > > appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
> > > > A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
> > > > reference when getting feedback and such.
> > >
> > > A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
> > > For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
> > > v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
> > > to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
> > > linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
> > > bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
> > > corresponds to exactly that.
> >
> > Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ?
>
> You can still clone Marcelo's tree at the label you want, and pull in
> changes from the `old' (from last week) ppc tree, and label that.
>
> I.e. if today Marcelo is at 2.4.25-pre6, while the ppc tree is at
> 2.4.25-pre1, and you want 2.4.25-pre2 for ppc, you can do this:
>   - clone Marcelo's tree at 2.4.25-pre2
>   - pull from ppc 2.4.25-pre1

I had forgotten all about that.  Thanks Geert.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:42:13PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
> > > > appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
> > > > A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
> > > > reference when getting feedback and such.
> > >
> > > A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
> > > For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
> > > v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
> > > to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
> > > linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
> > > bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
> > > corresponds to exactly that.
> >
> > Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ?
>
> You can still clone Marcelo's tree at the label you want, and pull in
> changes from the `old' (from last week) ppc tree, and label that.
>
> I.e. if today Marcelo is at 2.4.25-pre6, while the ppc tree is at
> 2.4.25-pre1, and you want 2.4.25-pre2 for ppc, you can do this:
>   - clone Marcelo's tree at 2.4.25-pre2
>   - pull from ppc 2.4.25-pre1

Mmm, i see.

The only problem being that the ppc tree is not properly labeled, so you
will get stuff in at the state of the day, not things corresponding to
a known working state.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:42:13PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
> > > > > appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
> > > > > A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
> > > > > reference when getting feedback and such.
> > > >
> > > > A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
> > > > For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
> > > > v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
> > > > to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
> > > > linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
> > > > bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
> > > > corresponds to exactly that.
> > >
> > > Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ?
> >
> > You can still clone Marcelo's tree at the label you want, and pull in
> > changes from the `old' (from last week) ppc tree, and label that.
> >
> > I.e. if today Marcelo is at 2.4.25-pre6, while the ppc tree is at
> > 2.4.25-pre1, and you want 2.4.25-pre2 for ppc, you can do this:
> >   - clone Marcelo's tree at 2.4.25-pre2
> >   - pull from ppc 2.4.25-pre1
>
> Mmm, i see.
>
> The only problem being that the ppc tree is not properly labeled, so you
> will get stuff in at the state of the day, not things corresponding to
> a known working state.

No, you use your local copy of ppc 2.4.25-pre1 :-)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

linuxppc latest ?

[Armin Schindler]

Hi all,

I'm somehow confused with the status of linuxppc.

If I want to patch my 2.4.25 kernel, what should I do to have the
latest linuxppc code ?

penguinppc.org tells me to use bitkeeper's linuxppc-2.4, but this tree
seems to be incomplete (directory arch/ppc/8260_io is missing).
Even together with the main linux-2.4 tree, some features I know from
the "old" snapshots are missing.

Am I using bitkeeper wrong or what source should I use ?

Thanks,
Armin


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc latest ?

[Kumar Gala]

On Mar 15, 2004, at 4:31 AM, Armin Schindler wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm somehow confused with the status of linuxppc.
>
> If I want to patch my 2.4.25 kernel, what should I do to have the
> latest linuxppc code ?
>
> penguinppc.org tells me to use bitkeeper's linuxppc-2.4, but this tree
> seems to be incomplete (directory arch/ppc/8260_io is missing).
> Even together with the main linux-2.4 tree, some features I know from
> the "old" snapshots are missing.

The the arch/ppc/8260_io dir has been renamed to cpm2_io.

- kumar


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
> > > appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
> > > A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
> > > reference when getting feedback and such.
> >
> > A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
> > For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
> > v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
> > to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
> > linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
> > bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
> > corresponds to exactly that.
>
> Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ?

I think it's just a design issue.  You can't export as a bitkeeper tree
a bitkeeper tree at a given revision because it would be too much work,
or something.  I don't know for certain.  Can anyone on the
bitkeepr-users list shed some light on why there's no 'bk export -tbk' ?
Or is there a functional equivalent that I don't know?

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:40:58AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:43:30AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
> > > > > appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
> > > > > A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
> > > > > reference when getting feedback and such.
> > > >
> > > > A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
> > > > For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
> > > > v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
> > > > to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
> > > > linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
> > > > bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
> > > > corresponds to exactly that.
> > >
> > > Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ?
> >
> > I think it's just a design issue.  You can't export as a bitkeeper tree
> > a bitkeeper tree at a given revision because it would be too much work,
> > or something.  I don't know for certain.  Can anyone on the
> > bitkeepr-users list shed some light on why there's no 'bk export -tbk' ?
> > Or is there a functional equivalent that I don't know?
>
> I don't know what it is that you are trying to do but I can guess.
>
> Regardless, the reason there is no 'bk export -tbk' is because it is not
> a feature that most people find useful.  I suspect that this is something
> that is more interesting to the open source folks than the commercial
> folks and if that is the case it isn't going to get fixed unless
> someone convinces their management to fund the change.  We're willing
> to do just about anything you want if you can foot the engineering NRE.

It turns out I just forgot about 'bk clone -rXXXX' which, at least in
my mind is equivalent to 'bk export -tbk -rXXXX'.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

[Tom Rini]

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/