On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 08:39:59PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <20010106104711.D1400 at opus.bloom.county> you wrote: > > > > > It appears that the BitKeeper repository at > > > bk://bitkeeper.fsmlabs.com:5000 > > > has changed. What happened to the previous BK tree? Was it replaced > > > with the > > > 2.4.0 baseline? > > > > The former 2_3 tree has been replaced with a new 2_4 tree which currently > > does > > _not_ have all of the fixes needed for PPC. > > Is there some place where such decisions are discussed or at least announced?
Formally? Nope. You just got the announcement. :) > Things like that hit my with surprise again and again (and obviously > not only me). Hey, it supprised me this morning to find out it had changed. But it was also expected. 2.3 is dead, it's now 2.4. > A few days ago Steven Hanley <sjh at wibble.net> asked for the currently > active devel tree. The question has not been answered yet. Active devel for what? The 2_5 tree (I'm sure if you search the -dev archives there's a few pointers to it, bk://bk.fsmlabs.com:5005 is where the unstable stuff happens, before moving to a stable tree. > I really would appreciate a summary about the current state of the > different source trees. Sure: linuxppc_2_3 - "Dead", it still exists on the server, but it's going away. linuxppc_2_4 - Where 2_3 used to be. It doesn't compile at the moment, but it will later today / tomorrow (I'm testing it right now). linuxppc_2_5 - Same old unstable dev tree, still port 5005 > Any comment from the Powers That Be? I don't know if I count, I just commit stuff :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
