On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:05:36AM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 17:21 -0500, Peter Gavin wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jonas Bonn <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > The most up-to-date Linux should be upstream... if it's not, > > there's > > something wrong. Why aren't patches being submitted? > > > > > > I know nothing about that. One problem may be that this repo hasn't > > been merged with Linus's tree in some time (since 3.4). > > See the 'for-upstream' branch... > > Aside from that, Linus' repo is what you should be basing new features > on... hence, that's the repo that should be the 'openrisc' one (as > opposed to personal repos) on the main github page, in my opinion. (And > Linus' repo is already mirrored on github, so there's really no need to > do it again...) >
I agree, my tree is a 'playground tree', that has no place there, as you said, we really don't need an 'official' openrisc Linux tree, since there already is one, Torvalds tree. That said, your master tree on openrisc.net has a lot of 'goodies' that aren't upstreamed (like drivers for SPI etc), so to bounce your question back at you, why aren't those upstreamed? I know, I'm throwing stones in a glass house accusing you for throwing stones in a glass house, I have stuff like that laying around as well, consider it a bit 'tongue-in-cheek'. But the fact remains, that's the tree that's easiest to "get going", that's what people are most likely going to use, not Torvalds tree. Stefan _______________________________________________ Linux mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/linux
