New build naming convention

[anmar.oueja at linaro.org]

Although I am late to the game, i think the names are a much better
improvement over the current ones

On 31 January 2012 11:41, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer at linaro.org> wrote:
> Okay so taking everyone's input to-date the current list is:
>
> <target>-<android>-<toolchain>-<kernel_origin>-<kernel_type>-<enablement_type>
>
>
> staging-vexpress-a9
> vexpress-ics-gcc46-armlt-stable-open
>
> tracking-panda
> panda-ics-gcc46-tilt-tracking-blob
>
> aosp-panda
> panda-ics-gcc44-aosp-stable-blob
>
> staging-imx53
> imx53-ics-gcc46-freescalelt-stable-open
>
> panda-4.4
> panda-ics-gcc46-kwg-upstream-open
>
> landing-snowball
> snowball-ics-gcc46-igloo-stable-blob
>
> landing-panda
> panda-ics-gcc46-omapzoom-stable-blob
>
> staging-panda
> panda-ics-gcc46-tilt-stable-blob
>
> staging-origen
> origen-ics-gcc46-samsunglt-stable-blob
>
> panda
> panda-ics-gcc46-kwg-upstream-open
>
> panda-4.4
> panda-ics-gcc44-aosp-stable-blob
>
> ANy other input before we switch over today?
>
>
> On 31 January 2012 10:34, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 31 January 2012 07:44, Patrik Ryd <patrik.ryd at linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 31 January 2012 12:02, Alexander Sack <asac at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Tony Mansson <tony.mansson at linaro.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > The full names are kind of cumbersome to use in everyday speech so I
>>>> > predict
>>>> > nicknames :)
>>>>
>>>> Very good point. Do we want to set up nicknames proactively or just
>>>> see what happens?
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest we call the snowball build Yeti since that was my suggestion for
>>> the name of the board, but the jury selected snowball. :)
>>>
>>> I think most of us will ignore ics, and gcc in the name and just call it the
>>> upstream- or stable-snowball and so on.
>>>
>>> And +1 on Jons comment about the order.
>>>
>>> Do we really need all pf the builds? I think not only the names, but the
>>> number of builds have caused some confusion. Didn't we have an idea that we
>>> would try to reduce the number of manifests?
>>
>> Actually, once LAVA starts testing build with
>> linaro-android-media-create and we get some better coverage there's a
>> few more builds we want to spin up.
>>
>> But we should get back to 4 mainline builds again.
>>
>> One big issue we need to address is that users of our builds don't
>> really want the 4.6 toolchain. They want AOSP for their board. So it
>> may be that we refigure stuff to have one 4.6 toolchain build and the
>> rest on 4.4 stock.
>>
>>>  /Patrik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alexander Sack
>>>> Technical Director, Linaro Platform Teams
>>>> http://www.linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
>>>> http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> linaro-android mailing list
>>>> linaro-android at lists.linaro.org
>>>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-android
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linaro-android mailing list
>>> linaro-android at lists.linaro.org
>>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-android
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Zach Pfeffer
>> Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams
>> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
>> Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
>> http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
>
>
>
> --
> Zach Pfeffer
> Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams
> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
> Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
> http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog



-- 
Anmar Oueja | M: +1 613 263 2549 | TZ: EST (GMT-5)
Less is more