Re: linuxppc_2_5 source tree (and others)

On Thu, 10 May 2001 17:11:14 -0600, Cort Dougan [off-list ref] writes:

Believe me, I know what it looks like.  I'm trying to clean things up but
it's a large problem.  I do appreciate your criticisms though, they are
useful in finding the worst parts.

And we appreciate your efforts - thank you.

Perhaps I can clear things up a bit.  I wanted _2_4 stable so that it
didn't get brand-new (untested and buggy) code.  I created _2_5 as a
work-area for us so people could push changes there, test them internally
and work out any problems.  We could then move them over to _2_4 quickly
when the changes were stable.  Unfortunately, people started giving out the
_2_5 tree and telling people to use it.

So, to solve that problem I created _2_4_devel so that we could get outside
testing and let users chose which kernel they wanted (brand-new features or
very stable and tested).

This is fair enough. I just didn't know what was going on. I have joined the
linuxppc-commit mailing list so I should be better informed in future.

Just as an aside, might this mean that it would be easier to get bk write
access to the _2_4_devel tree? (slight smiley :-).

Unfortunately we need multiple trees since branches won't do the job for
us.  Lines of development will, though.  The people at BitMover and working
on that feature of BitKeeper for us already.

Except it looks like you only get LODs if you pay. The free version won't
have LODs - and a number of other nifty features (as far as I can tell).

When the real 2.5.0 comes out (when Linus creates it) I'll create another
tree, linuxppc_2_5.  I made a mistake in naming our experimental tree
linuxppc_2_5, this tree will be the real linuxppc_2_5.  We'll probably have
a linuxppc_2_5 and linuxppc_2_5_devel but that's still to be decided (it
will probably be decided by need).

I actually guessed this was what had happened when I checked on kernel.org
and saw that there wasn't an official linux 2.5 yet (just some pre release
patches).

If the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree doesn't work for you let me know what
trouble you're having and I'll try to help.

Thanks for your response - you have cleared the matter up as far as I am
concerned. I feel much better about it all now - I will probably switch to
the _2_4_devel tree. Cheers!
								Murray...
--
Murray Jensen, CSIRO Manufacturing Sci & Tech,         Phone: +61 3 9662 7763
Locked Bag No. 9, Preston, Vic, 3072, Australia.         Fax: +61 3 9662 7853
Internet: Murray.Jensen@cmst.csiro.au  (old address was mjj@mlb.dmt.csiro.au)


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