Cort Dougan writes: > You should lose the chip from your shoulder if you want assistance. > _2_5 was never listed that way, it was an internal tree only.
I'm sorry I was rude. Please try to imagine what PowerPC Linux development must look like to someone who does not happen to work for FSM Labs, Montevista, or BitKeeper. >} I nearly fell into the trap. Just recently, 2_5 was listed as >} being where the latest development happens. It certainly looked >} that way too, with support for more boards than 2_4 had. >} Until just this morning, I was thinking I ought to use 2_5! > > No-one should have used it and the people telling you that you > should have used it shouldn't have done that. It had 6750 support, and 2_4 didn't. I don't see why this situation would ever be created, but anyway, clearly 2_5 was the better tree until it disappeared. If you need to do experimental work without disturbing the rest of the 2_4 code, you should be able to create a branch. > Get on the list and you won't be caught unaware. The _2_5 tree was > never a "for outside use" tree. Others were misinforming people, I > know. That was unfortuante but the _2_4_devel tree and the _2_4 > trees are both public and will not be "dead ends". All changes that > Linus will accept (not a simple job) do find their way to Linus > eventually. 1. why was there a public tree that was not "for outside use" 2. how can you have two trees, neither of which is a dead end? ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
