On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 07:26:02AM -0700, Gary Thomas wrote: > On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 21:51, Cort Dougan wrote: > > > > Would you be able to commit them to _2_4 instead so they're not in the > > wildly divergent _2_4_devel tree? That would definitely be handy when > > trying to find where the working trees are. > > > > } The patch below adds support for IBM's Arctic-II development system, > > } based on the 405LP processor. For now this is just the core support, > > } more drivers coming soon. Are there any objections, or suggestions > > } for doing things better before I commit this to linuxppc_2_4_devel? > > } > > This brings up some really good questions. I have support for three new > platforms based on the _2_4_devel tree which I'd like to get submitted > soon [so far, I've just been following along] So, > * Which tree should be best for new development/ports/etc?
The _2_4_devel tree at the moment, since that still has generally better infrastructure for non-pmacs :) I would also like to see a patch against the current linuxppc-2.5 tree as well. It doesn't have to be as well tested as the 2_4_devel version, and if the tree as a whole doesn't compile at the time, make a/b/c.o is actually legal in 2.5 so just make sure your changes still compile. > * What's the best process for proposing changes? I've seen many > patches come along on this list, but it's not clear to me if/when > they made it to any particular tree. If you aren't already on the linuxppc-commit at source.mvista.com list, you might want to join that. If a change makes it into any of the linuxppc_* lists, a msg gets sent there. If you want to propose a change cc relevant people (generally Paul and / or myself) and send it to the linuxppc-dev and / or linuxppc-embedded lists. Someone will speak up, even if it's only me to say I'm too busy today. :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
