Hi all,
This message is bcc'd to each of the contacts for the trees listed below,
so apologies if you get two copies.
I have been inspired to check the ages of the trees included in
linux-next. Below I have listed all the trees that have not been
commited to in the past 6 months. Please let me know if the tree is not
longer in use. I don't mind keeping these trees in linux-next if they
will have continued use, but would like to remove any that are no longer
needed.
Tree Last commit
---- -----------
4xx 1 year, 4 months ago
apm 1 year, 5 months ago
asm-generic 9 months ago
audit 1 year, 8 months ago
audit-current 1 year, 8 months ago
configfs 1 year, 10 months ago
cpupowerutils 1 year, 7 months ago
cputime 1 year, 9 months ago
davinci 2 years, 2 months ago
dwmw2 6 months ago
dwmw2-iommu 9 months ago
embedded 5 years ago
firmware 4 years, 4 months ago
fsnotify 9 months ago
fw-nohz 10 months ago
hsi 1 year, 8 months ago
hwpoison 2 years, 11 months ago
hwspinlock 2 years ago
ibft 1 year, 9 months ago
isci 1 year, 2 months ago
ixp4xx 7 months ago
jc_docs 2 years, 6 months ago
kconfig 12 months ago
kgdb 7 months ago
logfs 10 months ago
lzo-update 7 months ago
ocfs2 1 year, 1 month ago
omfs 1 year, 11 months ago
openrisc 6 months ago
osd 9 months ago
parisc 8 months ago
pcmcia 1 year, 7 months ago
pstore 6 months ago
random 7 months ago
sh 7 months ago
sh-current 1 year, 2 months ago
swiotlb 11 months ago
sysctl 1 year, 6 months ago
tmem 11 months ago
uclinux 7 months ago
unicore32 10 months ago
uprobes 1 year, 6 months ago
viafb 1 year, 6 months ago
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi Stephen,
On Tuesday 17 September 2013 12:31 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This message is bcc'd to each of the contacts for the trees listed below,
> so apologies if you get two copies.
>
> I have been inspired to check the ages of the trees included in
> linux-next. Below I have listed all the trees that have not been
> commited to in the past 6 months. Please let me know if the tree is not
> longer in use. I don't mind keeping these trees in linux-next if they
> will have continued use, but would like to remove any that are no longer
> needed.
>
> Tree Last commit
> ---- -----------
> davinci 2 years, 2 months ago
You can remove the davinci tree from linux-next since the patches are
now reaching linux-next through ARM-SoC tree. Apologies for not asking
you to remove it for so long.
Regards,
Sekhar
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This message is bcc'd to each of the contacts for the trees listed below,
> so apologies if you get two copies.
>
> I have been inspired to check the ages of the trees included in
> linux-next. Below I have listed all the trees that have not been
> commited to in the past 6 months. Please let me know if the tree is not
> longer in use. I don't mind keeping these trees in linux-next if they
> will have continued use, but would like to remove any that are no longer
> needed.
>
> Tree Last commit
> ---- -----------
> 4xx 1 year, 4 months ago
This is subarch is basically in maintenance mode. There have only
been a handful of patches that have been submitted over the past year,
and I've ACKed them for Ben to bring in via his tree. The arch isn't
dead, but it's certainly not going to have much in the way of new
changes. The overall powerpc tree is probably sufficient for
linux-next.
josh
On Tuesday 17 September 2013, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> asm-generic 9 months ago
I occasionally use this tree, but in most releases all asm-generic patches tend to
go along with whatever patch series needs them, since asm-generic changes are
typically done whenever we add some code to the kernel elsewhere. Please keep this
one.
Arnd
Hi Sekhar,
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:44:32 +0530 Sekhar Nori <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You can remove the davinci tree from linux-next since the patches are
> now reaching linux-next through ARM-SoC tree. Apologies for not asking
> you to remove it for so long.
Done.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Hi Josh,
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:53:16 -0400 Josh Boyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 4xx 1 year, 4 months ago
>
> This is subarch is basically in maintenance mode. There have only
> been a handful of patches that have been submitted over the past year,
> and I've ACKed them for Ben to bring in via his tree. The arch isn't
> dead, but it's certainly not going to have much in the way of new
> changes. The overall powerpc tree is probably sufficient for
> linux-next.
Removed.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 05:01:24PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This message is bcc'd to each of the contacts for the trees listed below,
> so apologies if you get two copies.
>
> I have been inspired to check the ages of the trees included in
> linux-next. Below I have listed all the trees that have not been
> commited to in the past 6 months. Please let me know if the tree is not
> longer in use. I don't mind keeping these trees in linux-next if they
> will have continued use, but would like to remove any that are no longer
> needed.
Thank you for the prunning effort.
> ibft 1 year, 9 months ago
Can go away.
> swiotlb 11 months ago
Need it. Don't remove it pls.
> tmem 11 months ago
Can go away.
Hi Konrad,
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:35:17 -0400 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ibft 1 year, 9 months ago
>
> Can go away.
>
> > swiotlb 11 months ago
>
> Need it. Don't remove it pls.
>
> > tmem 11 months ago
>
> Can go away.
OK, 2 removed. Thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:01:24 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> jc_docs 2 years, 6 months ago
I was afraid it would be the oldest tree on the list, but it's not even
close...:)
I've been meaning to do some stuff there for a bit; the problem is that
life keeps getting in the way. If it's not a hassle for you, I'd just
as soon keep it around, things have *got* to clear out one of these
days...
Thanks,
jon
Hi Jon,
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:27:29 -0600 Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:01:24 +1000
> Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > jc_docs 2 years, 6 months ago
>
> I was afraid it would be the oldest tree on the list, but it's not even
> close...:)
Yeah, amazing innit! ;-)
> I've been meaning to do some stuff there for a bit; the problem is that
> life keeps getting in the way. If it's not a hassle for you, I'd just
> as soon keep it around, things have *got* to clear out one of these
> days...
No worries, consider it preserved :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]