RE: [iPAQ] HH Patches

Tim,

I guess I don't respond well to rants. (synonym: rave)

You are welcome to use patches as the master for any projects you
maintain. We will continue to use CVS as the master and patches as a
way of sharing the changes we have made. It is possible for you are I
or anyone reasonably conversant with cvs checkout and diff to generate
the patches for all the versions in the handhelds.org CVS repository.
If what you wanted was for us to generate patches along with source
tarballs, you should have said so to begin with instead of starting a
flame.

I'm sure various forks of the Linux kernel have started up and died out.
Some of those used CVS. Big deal. It's the way open source works. I
think it is a positive thing. Anyone can "fork" a project if they want
to pursue a direction different from the mainstream. Often those
projects die due to lack of critical mass, but sometimes they get their
changes back into the mainstream and no longer need to maintain a
branch.

Handhelds.org had a branch of the X Window System source tree for
awhile. Once the hh.org changes were merged into the mainstream our
branch of the sources was retired from CVS. Our kernel source tree has
continued to stay ahead of the mainstream, so we continue to maintain
it. The rate of change in the kernel tree seems to be high enough that
we will be unable to retire it. Why are there still separate ARM Linux
patches? I suspect that there are similar reasons: a high influx of ARM
Linux patches that need to be integrated, plus some code that is not
acceptable by the upstream maintainer.

In any case, I do not view RMK's patches as the mainstream. I view
Linus's tree as mainstream and RMK's patches as a useful branch. We
have a goal of being able to build a fully working Linux kernel from the
linux.org kernel source tree. We seem to be blocked on the basis of
coding style at the moment, but I continue to rewrite code and submit
patches in the hopes of fulfilling that goal.

One difference, in my opinion, between the arm-linux-kernel community
and the handhelds.org community is the most members of the handhelds.org
community do not build kernels. Most of them would like to install a
pre-built kernel and to concentrate on using the device or developing
applications. We have had more success tracking what the community
wants by using a bugtracker (gnats and then bugzilla) than we have had
in enticing developers to submit patches. We do receive patches and we
do have a number of contributors using cvs commit, but the majority of
the handhelds.org community does not work directly with the linux kernel
source.

Jamey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Riker [mailto:Tim@Rikers.org]
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:07 PM
> To: George France
> Cc: Christian, Andrew; ipaq@handhelds.org; Hicks, Jamey
> Subject: Re: [iPAQ] HH Patches
>
>
> Not upset, just ranting.
>
> I know many, in fact probably most, of the patches have been
> submitted.
> But yet the community at large replies with the response that
> cvs is the
> sole source. This mentality is what should be fixed. It leads to dual
> development paths and does not foster good interproject communication.
>
> The community at large should be made more aware of the repository
> listed below.
>
> Standard releases like familiar should have patches available for the
> open source packages they include.
>
> These patches should be mailed promptly to the package maintainers.
>
> CVS is a useful tool. However a commit is not, and should not
> be the end
> of the road.
>
> There are many things in handhelds CVS that are pushed upstream.
> Excellent work with these!
>
> I did not mean to offend. I was just ranting. Perhaps I've spoken more
> clearly now?
>
> Now a nitpick:
>
> > "This is the current
> > system that has been in place for getting new patches into
> the Linux kernel.
> > It has been this way for a very long time. If you do not
> like the way the
> > system works, I would suggest that you take it up with RMK
> and Linus."
>
> You imply that all the kernel folk work as per HH with CVS trees that
> they all share. "This" is not the case. The patches are the way things
> work. I do not have issues with that. It has worked well for
> me as well
> with projects I maintain. I think Linus has expressed similar concerns
> with the growing list of kernel cvs servers.
>
> The CVS trees around the net have forked off on many
> occasions and died
> out. I'm just pointing out that HH is not working as well with the
> community in this respect as it could. This is NOT to say
> that there is
> no cooperation. Many things have come from HH and been merged into the
> mainstream. I would expect that you would agree with me when
> I say these
> merges could be more timely and more frequent. I would suggest that
> better, more public, patch maintenance would help.
>
> How many members of the HH community have a good feel for where HH
> differs from mainstream linux (in this case rmk)? I would say
> few. They
> just pull whatever is current from cvs. Patches make these differences
> more obvious. It also makes those who use the patches more vocal as to
> their needs such that the mainstream better fits those needs.
>
> George France wrote:
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > Calm down.
> >
> > Please see:
> >
> > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> >
> > more specificly:
> >
> >
> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/?action=section&
> section=0
> >
> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/?action=section&
> section=20
> >
> > You will see that, every patch is sent up stream.
> Sometimes to the ARM
> > maintainer Russell King (RMK). Sometimes to the
> maintainer. Most of the
> > time, these patches are accepted, sometimes they are not.
> Even if a patch is
> > accepted, the user will have to wait until the next
> kernel.org Linux release
> > or RMK patch release until the new code is available.
> >
> > Andrew is 100% correct. The "complete" hh.org patches are
> only available
> > through the linux/kernel CVS tree on handhelds.org. This
> is the current
> > system that has been in place for getting new patches into
> the Linux kernel.
> > It has been this way for a very long time. If you do not
> like the way the
> > system works, I would suggest that you take it up with RMK
> and Linus. I
> > would welcome any improvements.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > --George
> >
> > On Sunday 03 February 2002 15:09, Tim Riker wrote:
> > > <rant>
> > >
> > > Which, of course, means they have never been sent to the upstream
> > > maintainers in a legible format.
> > >
> > > See previous email thread on why upstream maintainers
> will not grep
> > > around everyone's cvs tree looking for useful bits.
> > >
> > > </rant>
> > >
> > > "Christian, Andrew" wrote:
> > > > The hh patches are only available through the linux/kernel CVS
> > > > repository.
> > > >
> > > > - Andrew
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Klaus Reimer [mailto:k@ailis.de]
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 6:09 AM
> > > > > To: ipaq@handhelds.org
> > > > > Subject: [iPAQ] HH Patches
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > is there a location where the hh-Kernel-Patches can be
> > > > > downloaded separately?
> > > > > Or are they only available together with the kernel
> sources in the
> > > > > linux/kernel CVS repository?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Bye, K
> > > > > [A735 47EC D87B 1F15 C1E9 53D3 AA03 6173 A723 E391]
> > > > > (Finger k@ailis.de to get public key)
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > iPAQ mailing list
> > > > > iPAQ@handhelds.org
> > > > > http://handhelds.org/mailman/listinfo/ipaq
> > > > > irc://irc.openprojects.net #ipaq
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > iPAQ mailing list
> > > > iPAQ@handhelds.org
> > > > http://handhelds.org/mailman/listinfo/ipaq
> > > > irc://irc.openprojects.net #ipaq
>
> --
> Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs! <g>
> All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
> ... if I'd just been paying attention.
>
Received on Mon Feb 4 05:15:43 2002