On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/18/2013 06:30 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: >>> OK, I thought I said, but maybe I didn't, I'm OK with re-using >>> the tree, but _not_ the master branch, u-boot-x86/sandbox would >>> have been fine. >> >> Personally I'd prefer another tree as done for other custodians. >> It makes life of new developers easier. > > It doesn't scale, however. If I had my wish and we were starting this > afresh, I'd go with user repositories rather than subject > repositories. Using Simon as the example, I don't think he needs one > for sandbox, one for patman (and other tools) and one for x86. I'd > rather pull .../sjc/for-trini/x86-whatever-vs-something.
The hassle to send to separated branches is the same for different remotes; what concerns me is a new developer to try to find patman or sandbox pending patches and do not realize it is at x86 tree. This is confusing. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot