On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:43:27AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:

Cort Dougan writes:

quoted

How about killing the _2_4_devel tree?  When I created it I want it to be a
playground for stabilizing then moving things over to 2_4 failry quickly.
It seems to have become the defacto "want board X, you better use
_2_4_devel" tree.

Now that Marcelo is using BK, what I would really like to do is to
kill both the linuxppc_2_4 and linuxppc_2_4_devel trees and move to a
tree that is a child of Marcelo's linux-2.4 tree.

quoted

When I went looking for a working 4xx tree recently I had to write a script
that would go through the last year of changesets in _2_4 and _2_4_devel
and try to build them then stick the result into a file.  That ran for 7
days on a 2.0Ghz Dual x86.  Then, that only gave me a list of building
trees.  Knowing that there's only 1 tree would be much easier!

4xx in particular is a problem because I'm not convinced about the
approach that has been taken for some of the 4xx infrastructure.  The
ocp stuff seems a lot more complicated than it needs to be, for
instance.  There is no particular reason that I can see why the 8xx
stuff in 2_4_devel shouldn't go to Marcelo for 2.4.21.

Well, it sounds as if linuxppc_2_4_devel is the place to commit the
Arctic2 code.  Killing that tree off, by whatever means, sounds like a
very good idea, but not actually something that committing my code
elsewhere would help to accomplish.

--
David Gibson			| For every complex problem there is a
david@gibson.dropbear.id.au	| solution which is simple, neat and
				| wrong.
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson

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