From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 08:03:09 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9216859a88df53d110ad49ae630bfc63@proxima.alt.za> References: <9216859a88df53d110ad49ae630bfc63@proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] [GSOC] plan9 which arch code to use? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e2da417a-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu May 8 07:59:12 EDT 2014, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > We are losing the 'reference implementation' from which the branches can be compared. > > But is this a necessary consequemce of Bell Labs' distance, or merely > the way the community operates? A reference point need not itself be > in use by all involved, it just needs to move slowly enough for a few > responsible parties to ensure that it remains a reference point. Give > 9atom x 2 and 9front (in whichever guise), together with the ARM > implementations (which I believe are much closer to the Bell Labs > release), it is not that onerous to make sure that there is a base > point for everyone out there. since it's not clear to me from reading this (forgive my reading comprehension), i run 9atom on rb, kw, and rpi in addition to amd64. i run the pc and pcpae kernels when there are changes. i know others also run 9atom on the rb. sadly i don't have a teg2 or original beagle. - erik