rsync mirrors of linuxppc-* on source.mvista.com

rsync mirrors of linuxppc-* on source.mvista.com

[Tom Rini]

With the shift away from BitKeeper, and with PowerPC work having long
shifted away from the linuxppc-* bitkeeper trees and towards a more
direct relationship with Andrew / et al, is there any value in keeping
the rsync mirrors of the last state of the linuxppc-* trees available?

As there's no metadata, my slant is towards no.  But it wouldn't be hard
to have these still exist, if people speak up.

Thanks.

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

Re: rsync mirrors of linuxppc-* on source.mvista.com

[Dan Malek]

On Apr 28, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Tom Rini wrote:

> ....  is there any value in keeping
> the rsync mirrors of the last state of the linuxppc-* trees available?

Have you been pulling any updates into these trees?
I would like to keep an archive copy, as there is still code in them
that hasn't migrated into main trees.  I guess the longer we wait
the less value that has, but I'd like to not lose it.  I don' t have
any problem hosting the archives if people still want to use them
for future reference.

Thanks.


	-- Dan

Re: rsync mirrors of linuxppc-* on source.mvista.com

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 12:02:13PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote:
> 
> On Apr 28, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
> >....  is there any value in keeping
> >the rsync mirrors of the last state of the linuxppc-* trees available?
> 
> Have you been pulling any updates into these trees?

They are semi current with the linux-2.[46] versions, but probably not
100% up to date.

> I would like to keep an archive copy, as there is still code in them
> that hasn't migrated into main trees.  I guess the longer we wait
> the less value that has, but I'd like to not lose it.  I don' t have
> any problem hosting the archives if people still want to use them
> for future reference.

For the linuxppc-2.5 tree, I did a dirdiff'ing prior
to the BK thing comming up and either submitted things, or gave to Paul
/ Matt Porter what I found (as it was 4xx things) to deal with.

For the linuxppc-2.4 tre, I know there's stuff that never went to
Marcelo.

I'll go re-activate rsync for the trees and have a comment about them
being historical archives.

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

Re: rsync mirrors of linuxppc-* on source.mvista.com

[Mark Guertin]

Hi Tom

I know of quite a few setups that still use these trees, so they might 
be worth keeping around for that sake at the least if it's not too much 
work.

Mark

Tom Rini wrote:

>With the shift away from BitKeeper, and with PowerPC work having long
>shifted away from the linuxppc-* bitkeeper trees and towards a more
>direct relationship with Andrew / et al, is there any value in keeping
>the rsync mirrors of the last state of the linuxppc-* trees available?
>
>As there's no metadata, my slant is towards no.  But it wouldn't be hard
>to have these still exist, if people speak up.
>
>Thanks.
>
>  
>

Re: rsync mirrors of linuxppc-* on source.mvista.com

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 08:37 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> With the shift away from BitKeeper, and with PowerPC work having long
> shifted away from the linuxppc-* bitkeeper trees and towards a more
> direct relationship with Andrew / et al, is there any value in keeping
> the rsync mirrors of the last state of the linuxppc-* trees available?
> 
> As there's no metadata, my slant is towards no.  But it wouldn't be hard
> to have these still exist, if people speak up.

You could just convert them to git format?

-- 
dwmw2

Re: rsync mirrors of linuxppc-* on source.mvista.com

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 06:44:50PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 08:37 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > With the shift away from BitKeeper, and with PowerPC work having long
> > shifted away from the linuxppc-* bitkeeper trees and towards a more
> > direct relationship with Andrew / et al, is there any value in keeping
> > the rsync mirrors of the last state of the linuxppc-* trees available?
> > 
> > As there's no metadata, my slant is towards no.  But it wouldn't be hard
> > to have these still exist, if people speak up.
> 
> You could just convert them to git format?

The linuxppc-* trees?  They really aren't useful nowadays.  Maybe the
linuxppc-2.4 tree should be, assuming Marcelo switches to git, and
there's some desire to continue the practice of letting work that's done
vs 2.4 exist somewhere in the community and added to.

But for 2.6, thankfully, folks are either using quilt (or similar) to
track their own work, or a project-specific tree, which I fully expect
to become git trees.  I think we can finally kill the notion of a
'master' PPC tree that's not Linus' tree, via Andrew's tree.

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