Config fragment for Versatile Express

Jon Medhurst (Tixy) tixy at linaro.org
Wed Apr 4 07:32:37 UTC 2012


On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 10:05 +0530, Tushar Behera wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 03:59 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > I think it makes sense if this 'upstream' doesn't include board files
> > though, they should come from LT trees.
> > 
> As for the board specific fragments, I feel it would be better if the
> config-upstream tree has the initial fragment (which I suppose is
> minimal enough to compile the common kernel). That way anyone taking
> linux-linaro-tracking can have at least a working setup.

I thought linux-linaro-tracking was going to operate a bit like
linux-next, i.e. just a merge of all the topics from LTs and working
groups, and from which Linaro produces it's releases and does some CI
build+test. If that's true, then anyone using that tree will always have
the LT code.

Though I guess if LT code breaks other boards and has to get temporarily
dropped, and if that LT code was pulled in as one monolithic topic like
TI and Samsung trees, then it would probably mean dropping the board
config too if we had that coming from the LT tree. But in that case,
does it matter that the broken board can't be built from
linux-linaro-tracking?

-- 
Tixy





More information about the linaro-dev mailing list