Cort Dougan writes: > 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. > 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. Paul. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
