Now I'm curious...

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rob Landley schreef:
> The official uClibc tree has seen 35 patches since the 0.9.29 release.  That 
> tree hasn't been touched in a month.  The uClibc-nptl branch (scheduled to 
> become 0.9.30) was last touched 5 weeks ago, and before that 4 months ago.  
> The last time the uClibc maintainer posted to this list was in May.  It is 
> now September.
> 
> The uClibc project is, for all intents and purposes, on hiatus at the moment.
> 
> Meanwhile, Peter S. Mazinger says his uClibc tree has 1194 commits relative to 
> 0.9.29.  (That's one thousand, one hundred, and ninety-four.)  I just had a 
> longish conversation with him on #gentoo-embedded on freenode, during which 
> he showed me how to patch uClibc/Rules.mak to get armv4l soft-float working.
> 
> Peter unsubscribed from this list almost exactly one year ago, due to 
> disagreements with Manuel Nova and Steven Hill:
> http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2006-March/015014.html
> 
> Manuel's objection was that Peter was making too many changes and checking 
> them into the development branch, which was making it hard for other 
> developers to keep up:
> http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2006-March/015018.html

So Manuel wants a trunk/trunk and if that gets too much development for his taste a
trunk/trunk/trunk? So what does 'development branch' really mean in the uclibc world?

> 
> Steven's objection was that he was getting paid to do large uClibc changes 
> out-of-tree, none of which would be merged until the end of the contract, and 
> that changes to the public tree in the meantime made more work for him 
> keeping his out-of-tree stuff in sync, and therefore Steven wanted Peter to 
> stop interfering with Steven's contract by doing rapid unrelated development:
> http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2006-March/015048.html
> http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2006-March/015049.html

Sounds like someone needs to read up on svk or git-svn...

> Peter's last post (asking how to unsubscribe) was August 25, 2006.  Steven and 
> Manuel got what then wanted.  Does it seem to anyone else here that a year 
> later, the result is that uClibc development has effectively ground to a 
> halt?

So if I understand correctly almost everything interesting in NOT in trunk. So as a distro
person I get to pick between a shitload of uclibc 'trees' that might or might not work...
Can't we lock someone in a room with meld, kdiff3, git and copies of the main uclibc forks?

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFG2oMsMkyGM64RGpERApV/AJ0StJCAiu9gGI8/41rHu1QqE1Nk4wCfZcZK
64eiH7cYKYJDPlp5JGjxPpw=
=tzOr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----