Root keys on bk:// have changed

Tom Rini trini at
Sun Jan 7 07:11:55 EST 2001

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://
> > > 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> 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:// 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.

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)

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See

More information about the Linuxppc-embedded mailing list