Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
A while ago I also played a bit with stgit and I was also not convinced,
that it's the right tool for our purpose. Nevertheless, I could reduce
the amount of git trees to manage (but I have to spend more time for a
better judgment).
Currently I'm porting IPIPE v1.6 over arch/powerpc rising a few code
management issues. I started porting with i386-1.6-01 extracting the
common part from that patch and adapting the arch specify code for
arch/powerpc. Now IPIPE is at v1.6-02 and I realized various
modifications, also of the noarch part including some serious bug fixes
(local_irq_disable_head in main.c did hang my system). But now, there is
no easy way to update the noarch part as we deal with combined noarch +
arch patches. From a new git based code management system, I would
appreciate a separation of noarch and arch. This would make it easier to
keep the archs in sync with Philippe's reference implementation (for
x86). Any comments?
IMHO, having the noarch and arch code separated is a nuisance. If there
was a centralized ipipe branch for 2.6.19, you would simply synchronize
your working copy with the server using the equivalent of "cvs/svn
update" and "cvs/svn commit". On the other hand, if the arch and noarch
code was separated, you would end up with twice as much updates and
commits.
That would mean that we handle more than one arch in a branch, e.g.
i386, ppc, powerpc, etc., and the arch maintainer just commits his arch
specific changes. Well, this sounds good.
Wolfgang.
_______________________________________________
Adeos-main mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main
