On 09/04/2012 03:37 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
Am 03/09/2012 20:02, schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Hi Stefano,
Hi Albert,
One of them uses u-boot-imx for his development, and of course after I rebased my tree he got into trouble, due to using a commit that does not exist anymore.
You mean a commit ID that does not exist any more, right?
Right.
Nevertheless there are boards, where the official documentation explain how to set patches on bases of u-boot-arm. For example,
I haven't found where in the page a reference to u-boot-arm was made. Can you clarify this?
I have not found this issue myself - Detlev discovers that in the documentation for the bootloader (I think inside the SDK that can be download following the link in that page) there is an a reference to a commit-id in u-boot-arm.
Of course, we can really say that setting a development on a ARM repository instead of main repository is not the best ;-). But we know that sometimes setting on a partial repository is the best because some patches that are strictly required are already merged. And I do not know if we can say that our trees are "private" or "development" only: they are published, and available for everybody.
But they are not official. The official release is u-boot/master.
This is a point - I have also considered that the architecture trees are unofficial, and users should clone their tree from Wolfgang's tree.
Nevertheless, all these tree are published, and nobody says that they cannot be used. And they look like as the architecture trees for linux (linux-omap, linux-imx,...). They also are not rebased and it is not unusual to get the last status for an architecture from one of these trees.
We have this issue on Tegra a lot too; Tegra is pretty new, and so anyone running U-Boot on Tegra typically uses the Tegra repo, not even the ARM repo.
If we're voting, I personally fully support a move to a pure merge-based workflow (although note that I'm not a maintainer of any part of U-Boot, just a contributor to many Tegra boards).