Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> A while ago I also played a bit with stgit and I was also not convinced,
> that it's the right tool for our purpose. Nevertheless, I could reduce
> the amount of git trees to manage (but I have to spend more time for a
> better judgment).
>
> Currently I'm porting IPIPE v1.6 over arch/powerpc rising a few code
> management issues. I started porting with i386-1.6-01 extracting the
> common part from that patch and adapting the arch specify code for
> arch/powerpc. Now IPIPE is at v1.6-02 and I realized various
> modifications, also of the noarch part including some serious bug fixes
> (local_irq_disable_head in main.c did hang my system). But now, there is
> no easy way to update the noarch part as we deal with combined noarch +
> arch patches. From a new git based code management system, I would
> appreciate a separation of noarch and arch. This would make it easier to
> keep the archs in sync with Philippe's reference implementation (for
> x86). Any comments?
IMHO, having the noarch and arch code separated is a nuisance. If there
was a centralized ipipe branch for 2.6.19, you would simply synchronize
your working copy with the server using the equivalent of "cvs/svn
update" and "cvs/svn commit". On the other hand, if the arch and noarch
code was separated, you would end up with twice as much updates and
commits.
--
Gilles Chanteperdrix
_______________________________________________
Adeos-main mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main
