* Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>
>> I started this once.
>>
>> I have (sort of) a GIT tree with all Linux revisions that I could find
>> from v0.01 up to v1.0.9. But the most interesting information and also
>> what is the most time
* Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I started this once.
I have (sort of) a GIT tree with all Linux revisions that I could find
from v0.01 up to v1.0.9. But the most interesting information and also
what is the most time consuming is the
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 20:10:23 -0400, Nicolas Pitre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I have sanitized .tgz files that I use to stuff a Git repo with. I
> > recall that some of them were reconstructed through patching an earlier
> > or later
On Mon, 2007-07-23 20:10:23 -0400, Nicolas Pitre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have sanitized .tgz files that I use to stuff a Git repo with. I
> recall that some of them were reconstructed through patching an earlier
> or later kernel version because the original ones were corrupted. Some
On Mon, 2007-07-23 20:10:23 -0400, Nicolas Pitre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have sanitized .tgz files that I use to stuff a Git repo with. I
recall that some of them were reconstructed through patching an earlier
or later kernel version because the original ones were corrupted. Some
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-23 20:10:23 -0400, Nicolas Pitre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have sanitized .tgz files that I use to stuff a Git repo with. I
recall that some of them were reconstructed through patching an earlier
or later kernel version
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > I have sanitized .tgz files that I use to stuff a Git repo with. I
> > recall that some of them were reconstructed through patching an earlier
> > or later kernel version because the original ones were corrupted. Some
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> I have sanitized .tgz files that I use to stuff a Git repo with. I
> recall that some of them were reconstructed through patching an earlier
> or later kernel version because the original ones were corrupted. Some
> patches were retrieved from other archival sites,
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:06:09PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > - v0.96 sources
> >
> > - v0.99.12 announcement
> >
> > - sources for v0.99.13{abcdefghij} (got k, don't know where the serie
> >ends) as well as announcements for all of them
> >
>
Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:06:09PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> - v0.96 sources
>>
>> - v0.99.12 announcement
>>
>> - sources for v0.99.13{abcdefghij} (got k, don't know where the serie
>>ends) as well as announcements for all of them
>>
>> - all announcements for
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:06:09PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> - v0.96 sources
>
> - v0.99.12 announcement
>
> - sources for v0.99.13{abcdefghij} (got k, don't know where the serie
>ends) as well as announcements for all of them
>
> - all announcements for v0.99.14{a-z} except for
> What is missing is:
>
> - v0.02 sources
>
> - v0.10 announcement
>
> - v0.96 sources
>
> - v0.99.12 announcement
>
> - sources for v0.99.13{abcdefghij} (got k, don't know where the serie
>ends) as well as announcements for all of them
didn't Tigran at some point get a full
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > What is missing is:
> >
> > - v0.02 sources
>
> I think this really is gone. 0.03 was such an improvement on 0.02 that I
> think what happened was that I literally removed 0.02 (hey, it
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:44:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >
> > Um, *I* never had the bad taste to import Linux kernels into CVS. :-)
>
> Ahh. I just checked.
>
> RCS.
>
> There are old linux archive of yours that has some RCS files in
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> What is missing is:
>
> - v0.02 sources
I think this really is gone. 0.03 was such an improvement on 0.02 that I
think what happened was that I literally removed 0.02 (hey, it wasn't
historically interesting at the time!). It's not the first
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> Um, *I* never had the bad taste to import Linux kernels into CVS. :-)
Ahh. I just checked.
RCS.
There are old linux archive of yours that has some RCS files in it (0.10
and 0.12 at least)
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > I actually tried to get something like this together back in the BK days
> > and early in the SCO saga. It was pretty painful to try to find all the
> > historic trees and patches
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > I started this once.
> >
> > I have (sort of) a GIT tree with all Linux revisions that I could find
> > from v0.01 up to v1.0.9. But the most interesting information and also
> > what is the
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I actually tried to get something like this together back in the BK days
> and early in the SCO saga. It was pretty painful to try to find all the
> historic trees and patches - they're all in different format, and some of
>
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> I started this once.
>
> I have (sort of) a GIT tree with all Linux revisions that I could find
> from v0.01 up to v1.0.9. But the most interesting information and also
> what is the most time consuming is the retrieval of announcement
>
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I've been thinking about trying to re-create some really old history
> into git, but it's still a lot of work.. And obviously not very useful,
> just interesting from an archeological standpoint.
I started this once.
I have (sort of) a GIT tree
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Wouldn't be hard to make a git tree with all the patches all the way
> back to 0.01 even...
I actually tried to get something like this together back in the BK days
and early in the SCO saga. It was pretty painful to try to find all the
historic
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Wouldn't be hard to make a git tree with all the patches all the way
back to 0.01 even...
I actually tried to get something like this together back in the BK days
and early in the SCO saga. It was pretty painful to try to find all the
historic
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
So I've been thinking about trying to re-create some really old history
into git, but it's still a lot of work.. And obviously not very useful,
just interesting from an archeological standpoint.
I started this once.
I have (sort of) a GIT tree
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I started this once.
I have (sort of) a GIT tree with all Linux revisions that I could find
from v0.01 up to v1.0.9. But the most interesting information and also
what is the most time consuming is the retrieval of announcement
messages for
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I actually tried to get something like this together back in the BK days
and early in the SCO saga. It was pretty painful to try to find all the
historic trees and patches - they're all in different format, and some of
them
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I started this once.
I have (sort of) a GIT tree with all Linux revisions that I could find
from v0.01 up to v1.0.9. But the most interesting information and also
what is the most time
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I actually tried to get something like this together back in the BK days
and early in the SCO saga. It was pretty painful to try to find all the
historic trees and patches -
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
Um, *I* never had the bad taste to import Linux kernels into CVS. :-)
Ahh. I just checked.
RCS.
There are old linux archive of yours that has some RCS files in it (0.10
and 0.12 at least)
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
What is missing is:
- v0.02 sources
I think this really is gone. 0.03 was such an improvement on 0.02 that I
think what happened was that I literally removed 0.02 (hey, it wasn't
historically interesting at the time!). It's not the first time
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:44:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
Um, *I* never had the bad taste to import Linux kernels into CVS. :-)
Ahh. I just checked.
RCS.
There are old linux archive of yours that has some RCS files in it (0.10
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
What is missing is:
- v0.02 sources
I think this really is gone. 0.03 was such an improvement on 0.02 that I
think what happened was that I literally removed 0.02 (hey, it wasn't
What is missing is:
- v0.02 sources
- v0.10 announcement
- v0.96 sources
- v0.99.12 announcement
- sources for v0.99.13{abcdefghij} (got k, don't know where the serie
ends) as well as announcements for all of them
didn't Tigran at some point get a full history
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:06:09PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
- v0.96 sources
- v0.99.12 announcement
- sources for v0.99.13{abcdefghij} (got k, don't know where the serie
ends) as well as announcements for all of them
- all announcements for v0.99.14{a-z} except for pl14r
Al Viro wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:06:09PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
- v0.96 sources
- v0.99.12 announcement
- sources for v0.99.13{abcdefghij} (got k, don't know where the serie
ends) as well as announcements for all of them
- all announcements for v0.99.14{a-z} except
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:06:09PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
- v0.96 sources
- v0.99.12 announcement
- sources for v0.99.13{abcdefghij} (got k, don't know where the serie
ends) as well as announcements for all of them
- all
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I have sanitized .tgz files that I use to stuff a Git repo with. I
recall that some of them were reconstructed through patching an earlier
or later kernel version because the original ones were corrupted. Some
patches were retrieved from other archival sites, etc.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
I have sanitized .tgz files that I use to stuff a Git repo with. I
recall that some of them were reconstructed through patching an earlier
or later kernel version because the original ones were corrupted. Some
patches
On 7/22/07, Michael Tharp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Wouldn't be hard to make a git tree with all the patches all the way
> back to 0.01 even...
It'd be delightful from a completeness standpoint (and I do love
completeness), but considering it already takes a good 20
On 7/22/07, Paul Mundt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyone still sending 2.4 patches with the intent of them being moved
forward and applied to a current kernel needs to be killfiled.
These patches are coming from companies that aren't interested in
participating in the GPL process but are being
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Wouldn't be hard to make a git tree with all the patches all the way
> back to 0.01 even...
It'd be delightful from a completeness standpoint (and I do love
completeness), but considering it already takes a good 20 minutes to
clone the 2.6 tree over a respectable cable
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jul 22 2007 23:46, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Jul 23 2007 06:13, Paul Mundt wrote:
>>> Err, that's crap. Have you even looked at gitweb? There's at least:
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git
>>> This has trees all the way back to
On Jul 22 2007 23:46, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>On Jul 23 2007 06:13, Paul Mundt wrote:
>>>
>>Err, that's crap. Have you even looked at gitweb? There's at least:
>>
>>git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git
>>This has trees all the way back to 2.5.0.
Actually back to 2.4.0,
On Jul 23 2007 06:13, Paul Mundt wrote:
>>
>Err, that's crap. Have you even looked at gitweb? There's at least:
>
>git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git
>This has trees all the way back to 2.5.0.
>
>and Linus also has:
>
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 11:00:15PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jul 22 2007 16:49, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > Continuing on with kernel archeology for embedded systems, any
> > interest in making a git tree with all of the kernel versions from the
> > beginning up to the start of the current git
On Jul 22 2007 16:49, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
> Continuing on with kernel archeology for embedded systems, any
> interest in making a git tree with all of the kernel versions from the
> beginning up to the start of the current git tree?
Well, it would be cool if history was somehow available (I
Continuing on with kernel archeology for embedded systems, any
interest in making a git tree with all of the kernel versions from the
beginning up to the start of the current git tree? No history in the
tree, just a simple way to quickly fetch and select a copy of all the
various old releases. I
Continuing on with kernel archeology for embedded systems, any
interest in making a git tree with all of the kernel versions from the
beginning up to the start of the current git tree? No history in the
tree, just a simple way to quickly fetch and select a copy of all the
various old releases. I
On Jul 22 2007 16:49, Jon Smirl wrote:
Continuing on with kernel archeology for embedded systems, any
interest in making a git tree with all of the kernel versions from the
beginning up to the start of the current git tree?
Well, it would be cool if history was somehow available (I recognize
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 11:00:15PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jul 22 2007 16:49, Jon Smirl wrote:
Continuing on with kernel archeology for embedded systems, any
interest in making a git tree with all of the kernel versions from the
beginning up to the start of the current git tree?
On Jul 23 2007 06:13, Paul Mundt wrote:
Err, that's crap. Have you even looked at gitweb? There's at least:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git
This has trees all the way back to 2.5.0.
and Linus also has:
On Jul 22 2007 23:46, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jul 23 2007 06:13, Paul Mundt wrote:
Err, that's crap. Have you even looked at gitweb? There's at least:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git
This has trees all the way back to 2.5.0.
Actually back to 2.4.0, including
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jul 22 2007 23:46, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jul 23 2007 06:13, Paul Mundt wrote:
Err, that's crap. Have you even looked at gitweb? There's at least:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git
This has trees all the way back to 2.5.0.
Actually
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Wouldn't be hard to make a git tree with all the patches all the way
back to 0.01 even...
It'd be delightful from a completeness standpoint (and I do love
completeness), but considering it already takes a good 20 minutes to
clone the 2.6 tree over a respectable cable
On 7/22/07, Paul Mundt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone still sending 2.4 patches with the intent of them being moved
forward and applied to a current kernel needs to be killfiled.
These patches are coming from companies that aren't interested in
participating in the GPL process but are being
On 7/22/07, Michael Tharp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Wouldn't be hard to make a git tree with all the patches all the way
back to 0.01 even...
It'd be delightful from a completeness standpoint (and I do love
completeness), but considering it already takes a good 20 minutes
56 matches
Mail list logo
