From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <50e8f913-040e-456d-8e81-6db8099e8639@o11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 15:02:04 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Leimbach To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd4054e1c3e0c0485cbdc32 Subject: Re: [9fans] Almost immediate ISO Boot Failure Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1ade57c6-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --000e0cd4054e1c3e0c0485cbdc32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, ron minnich wrote: > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:23 AM, hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com> wrote: > > The more interesting question is: who doesn't agree, and why? > > > > On 5/4/10, Pavel Klinkovsky wrote: > >>> maybe it is time to try to pack-port some of Erik's stuff to the > canonical > >>> source. > >> I fully agree. > >> > >> Pavel > > The argument here is that we need to sync 9atom back to sources, and > that may well be true. > > But there's another path: > use mercurial to create a clone of > http://bitbucket.org/rminnich/sysfromiso > you can call it 9atom. > > You can put your changes there. > > Then you can use the mercurial tools to continually refresh your 9atom > tree from sysfromiso. > > In that way, you can provide a 9atom tree that is perfectly in sync > with sources, and it is easy for others to see what you have done. > And, most importantly, the maintainers of the main tree can easily see > what they need to see, and figure out what ought to come back to the > mainline, and pull back things that make sense to pull back. > > There is real precedent nowadays for people to maintain forks of a > kernel tree, where they can experiment, and do so in a way that makes > merges back to the mainline easy. > > ron > > Right, forks aren't always evil and to be avoided. In some cases they're just perfect for organized experimentation. --000e0cd4054e1c3e0c0485cbdc32 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, ron minn= ich <rminnich@gm= ail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:23 AM, hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The more interesting question is: who doesn't agree, and why?
>
> On 5/4/10, Pavel Klinkovsky <pavel.klinkovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> maybe it is time to try to pack-port some of Erik's stuff = to the canonical
>>> source.
>> I fully agree.
>>
>> Pavel

The argument here is that we need to sync 9atom back to sources, and
that may well be true.

But there's another path:
use mercurial to create a clone of http://bitbucket.org/rminnich/sysfromiso=
you can call it 9atom.

You can put your changes there.

Then you can use the mercurial tools to continually refresh your 9atom
tree from sysfromiso.

In that way, you can provide a 9atom tree that is perfectly in sync
with sources, and it is easy for others to see what you have done.
And, most importantly, the maintainers of the main tree can easily see
what they need to see, and figure out what ought to come back to the
mainline, and pull back things that make sense to pull back.

There is real precedent nowadays for people to maintain forks of a
kernel tree, where they can experiment, and do so in a way that makes
merges back to the mainline easy.

ron

Right, forks aren't always evil and to be = avoided. =A0In some cases they're just perfect for organized experiment= ation.=A0

--000e0cd4054e1c3e0c0485cbdc32--