On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:43:27AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> 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.
Well, it sounds as if linuxppc_2_4_devel is the place to commit the
Arctic2 code. Killing that tree off, by whatever means, sounds like a
very good idea, but not actually something that committing my code
elsewhere would help to accomplish.
--
David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a
david at gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and
| wrong.
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
