Re: [iPAQ] HH Patches

Hello Tim,

If you would like to create HH patches from the CVS repository on a regular
basis that matches the bin releases, I would be happy to create an FTP
account for you on handhelds.org to hold HH kernel patches. :-)

Best Regards,

--George

On Monday 04 February 2002 14:09, Tim Riker wrote:
> Ok, already. Sorry I brought it up. ;-)
>
> I meant my comments as a minor rant. Consider it a feature request. I
> did not mean to start this large flame thread.
>
> To restate: I appretiate the HH contributions to the open source world.
> My personal prefererence would be to have patch files available for each
> and every binary release. That's not the way things are. Tough. I can
> deal with it. I thought I'd rant for a moment, but now I'm sorry I even
> brought it up.
>
> Keep up the good work.
>
> Tim "Foot in Mouth" Riker.
>
> "Hicks, Jamey" wrote:
> > 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 11:41:18 2002