On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 01:37:32PM +0200, Harald Wagener wrote:
> Ethan Benson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 12:55:05PM +0200, Harald Wagener wrote:
> > > Knut J Bjuland wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What are there plans for a new XFS release,
> > >
> > > Releases are made as an add on iso image whith which You can install
> > > RedHat on
> >
> > no they are not. the releases have nothing to do with redhat.
> > releases are in the form of a diff patch against the kernel, not some
> > redhat iso.
>
> Ethan, of course You are right. But I was under the impression the OP wanted
> to know about an easily installed version. So I answered his question under
> that light, although my answer is wrong in a strict sense.
> But we had XFS 1.0, 1.0.1, and 1.1 as releases in the way I described it, no?
1.1 didn't get an installer for quite a while after its release, and i
think others had to contribute it this time.
> > > Definitely there is a 2.4.18 version in cvs. I don't know if it's
> > > relative to
> > > 2.4.18-5, which seems to be a redhat kernel. At this time, RedHat folks
> > > would
> > > be the ones to be asked for xfs inclusion (by You, that is)....
> >
> > not anymore, cvs is at 2.4.19-rc1
>
> But I thought the point of cvs would be that You can go back to another point
> in development history? So, a 2.4.18 version is Out There (rather, in
> there)...
that would be difficult since SGI does not actually use CVS, they use
a very interesting, but unspecific version control system that exports
to CVS, this means that there are no tags to efficiently let you
checkout an older version of the entire tree, you can inspect the
history of all the files whcih haven't been renamed/removed and see
every past revision but there is no way AFAIK to checkout a 2.4.18
version from CVS. (you can still get the patches from oss.sgi.com but
thats it).
also afaict the way the SGI version control system exports to CVS is
to just deletes files which are moved/renamed or deleted, rather then
moving them to a cvs attic, i may be wrong on this, it just appears so
since whenever they remove/move/rename a file cvs just reports that
`it no longer exists in the repository' instead of `is no longer
pertenant'
--
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
pgp9guFcCdEvl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|