From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3CAA480E.1050304@brocade.com> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 16:08:46 -0800 From: "Amit D. Chaudhary" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Status of 440GP port References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020402113518.02aa3800@pop.prodigy.net> <20020402141845.A12269@home.com> <20020402134109.A5189@ecam.san.rr.com> <20020402222147.GE20767@beef.az.mvista.com> <20020402145400.B5189@ecam.san.rr.com> <3CAA3EEA.D844E7AB@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Hi, After listening to the email thread so far, I have a rather simple question, is there any difference current or planned between the bk repositories? linuxppc_2_4: the stable branch linuxppc_2_4_devel: the stable branch testing tree both seem to be based on 2.4.19-pre4. Thanks Amit Frank Rowand wrote: > andrew may wrote: > > > < taken totally out of context > > >>I would expect a development tree to contain non-working and non-tested >>stuff. It becomes very help full to see things that get tried but don't >>work in the history of a file. It makes a lot more sense to use the version >>history to document quirks in hardware than to start putting comments in the >>source on what does and doesn't work. >> > > The version history does not seem to me a useful place to document quirks in > hardware. The history is usually full of so much trivia that it is hard to > search. The history also usually doesn't include much in the way of useful > information. It seems to me that either the source, or the Documentation > directory is a good place to document quirks in hardware. > > -Frank > -- > Frank Rowand > MontaVista Software, Inc > > > > ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/