Axel Gembe wrote: > Imre Kaloz wrote: >> I share Gregers' view, too.. Also, one central git is a chaotic mess for >> this, >> every target would need it's own branch.. Think ddwrt's repo :P >> > I dunno how the current situation differs because every target > effectively *IS* a branch from the generic kernel which is a branch from > upstream. > IMHO its only logical to create every target as a branch. I rather think > it would be a chaotic mess to not use seperate branches. > Personally I'd love to see an OpenWRT git repository. Even if it just > auto-imports the patch series from OpenWRT (although I'd favor the other > way around) The kernel git repositories should only be used for sharing changes with upstream. Maintaining the OpenWrt kernel code in one git repository or branch for every single target would only make things more complex, as it removes all the transparency around our custom maintained patches and the updates that we do to them. It boils down to the difference between maintaining patch sets of the trees vs. maintaining forks of the trees. Maintaining patch sets is not particularly well supported in regular git without additions like stgit or guilt (which would basically result in exactly the same storage format that we use now, as generated mostly by quilt).
- Felix _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
