New build naming convention

[Zach Pfeffer]

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