On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:

quoted

Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
reference when getting feedback and such.

A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
corresponds to exactly that.

Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ?

On the other hand, it's not that hard to decide which changes are
appropriate and which are not.  Using the real example of v2.4.24, all
of the changes inbetween are for generic things, or possibly ppc64.  All
of those can be backed out.

Yeah, but ideally, all distribution maintainers should use the same set
of changelogs for what should be considered

<hat=former LinuxPPC, Inc kernel packaging guy>
We all started digging into the kernel someplace :)
</hat>.

Yeah. The problem i have is that most people which use my debian
packages use pmac, and i can't test it on those, since i don't have this
hardware. Oh, well, now that i understand things better, i will try to
go sorting the changesets or something. But still, a tag would be
welcome.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

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