Re: [linuxsh-dev] Quick note about drop-in trees

[M. R. B. <mr...@0x...>]

* Greg Banks <gb...@po...> on Wed, Aug 01, 2001:

Ok, I'm supposed to be going to bed, but I just saw your post :).

> 
>   Right.  This has the effect that the drop-in tree works with exactly
> one version of the mainline tree.  This fact needs to be stated in an
> obvious place so that people checking out the drop-in tree don't do
> the wrong thing accidentally.  Also the exact version involved needs
> to be noted somewhere and maintained as part of the merge procedure.
> 

The convention I've seen in other drop-in trees is a file named
'AGAINST-2.4.7'.  That file is just touched.  BTW, I thought that the
massive CVS tree was constrained to only one version :).

> 
>   Now, does the drop-in tree get dumped on top of the mainline tree
> or does it go into a sibling directory?  Both approaches have major
> problems.  On-top ends up with massive '?' results from "cvs -n up".
> Sibling has problems with Makefiles (not solved until kaos' new kbuild).
> 

The treelink.sh script (attached to this e-mail) symlinks the drop-in tree
on top of the mainline tree.  So you always update from the orginal drop-in
tree and rerun treelink.sh.  This is simple enough for the passive developer
to do when the kernel is upgraded and the drop-in tree is re-sync'd.

I've never used a sibling tree so I haven't a clue how that works.

Ok, now I'm *really* going to bed :).

C'ya.

Marcus