[U-Boot] ARM Workflow: rebase on ARM repositories

Stephen Warren swarren at wwwdotorg.org
Tue Sep 4 17:32:36 CEST 2012

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,
>>> 	http://www.ti.com/tool/tmdsevm3530
>> 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).

More information about the U-Boot mailing list