Tracking Android kernel tips and Android builds
james.westby at canonical.com
Tue Aug 30 15:58:19 UTC 2011
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:50:51 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis <kiko at linaro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:46:55AM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
> > Because we push everything upstream.
> While I agree with that blanket statement, there's no reason we wouldn't
> provide a [potentially temporary] version of repo that included the
> changes we're pushing upstream.
> We do this for every one of the components we ship, so I see no
> philosophical reason why we wouldn't do so for repo.
> Is there a technical reason?
Nope, there are two things as I see it:
1. knowing the the patch will go upstream eventually, or being willing
to maintain a fork forever, or do the rework necessary to fix
it. There are also related social issues, such as the possibility of
being seen as a hostile fork shipping bad code or something.
2. Getting people to use our repo version with our trees. This is both
a time problem (that doesn't really go away with upstreaming,) and a
problem of inconveniencing people who are already working with repo
We make these decisions all the time in Linaro, and we should evaluate
these things here.
Any other issues that I've missed? Where should we come down in this case?
More information about the linaro-dev