From: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
To: "Post, Mark K" <mark.post@eds.com>
Cc: "'Linux390'" <linux-390@vm.marist.edu>,
"'BOEBLINGEN LINUX390'" <LINUX390@de.ibm.com>,
"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Discrepancy between ftp.kernel.org and linux.bkbits.net
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:04:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41EB395F.50602@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5A14AF34CFF8AD44A44891F7C9FF41050157A123@usahm236.amer.corp.eds.com>
Post, Mark K wrote:
> I believe I've discovered an odd discrepancy between what is in the official
> Linux BitKeeper repository, and what is on ftp.kernel.org. According to
> BitKeeper, the last time linux/arch/s390/config.in and
> linux/arch/s390x/config.in were changed is 17 months ago. What is in
> ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.28.tar.bz2 was last modified
> on November 17, 2004. The difference between the two versions is this:
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
> bool 'BSD Process Accounting' CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT
> bool 'Sysctl support' CONFIG_SYSCTL
> define_bool CONFIG_KCORE_ELF y
> -tristate 'Kernel support for ELF binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> +bool 'Kernel support for ELF binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> tristate 'Kernel support for MISC binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC
> bool 'Show crashed user process info' CONFIG_PROCESS_DEBUG
> bool 'Pseudo page fault support' CONFIG_PFAULT
>
>
> Admittedly, pretty small, but still disturbing to me, at least. What's
> interesting is that this change seems to have been made to a _lot_ of
> architectures (14 in all) in patch-2.4.28-pre2.bz2, which is now in
> ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/testing/old/ That file is dated August
> 26, 2004. This same change was included in -pre3, all the way through -rc4,
> and then the final 2.4.28. The entry in the patch-2.4.28.log looks like
> this:
> Adrian Bunk:
> o 2.4.28-pre1: add two SATA Configure.help entries
> o disallow modular BINFMT_ELF
>
> Does anyone have any idea why this didn't make it into BitKeeper? Should it
> be in BitKeeper or not? This looks like some sort of process failure (or
> failure to follow the process), which is what concerns me the most.
Browsing bkbits.net shows that it is there:
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/diffs/arch/s390/config.in@1.14?nav=index.html|src/|src/arch|src/arch/s390|hist/arch/s390/config.in
so a 'bk pull' doesn't show it?? (I can't verify yes/no on that.)
--
~Randy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-17 4:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-17 2:18 Discrepancy between ftp.kernel.org and linux.bkbits.net Post, Mark K
2005-01-17 4:04 ` Randy.Dunlap [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-01-17 4:48 Post, Mark K
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=41EB395F.50602@osdl.org \
--to=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=LINUX390@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-390@vm.marist.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.post@eds.com \
/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