The linaro-2.6.39 kernel repository is now alive
dsaxena at linaro.org
Fri Jun 3 02:39:09 UTC 2011
On 2 June 2011 19:01, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 18:55, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, John Rigby wrote:
>>> I noticed all the fine AndyDoan/Ricardo fixes that make panda
>>> wonderful are missing. My question now is should that stuff go back
>>> in or should we plan on a LT/BSP kernel for full functionality. I
>>> presume if those patches were headed upstream they would be headed
>>> upstream:). If not they they should not be in linux-linaro.
>> This is the strategy of this game. If it isn't going upstream you lose.
> First, please don't take offense to this feedback. I know kernel
> banter can have a harsh undertone.
> I'd like to suggest this kind of feedback isn't appropriate. The
> issues concerning what can't be upstreamed are well known
I think the issues are well known but if developers are not working on
cleaning up the code to make it upstreamable, we have to continue to
push back and provide them whatever guidance is needed on how to
make it acceptable until they get it upstream. Until it is upstream, the
developers of out-of-tree code need to be 100% responsible for rebasing
and moving their code forward to newer kernels or there's no motivation
for developers to change their ways. By they I don't mean to single out
Andy/Ricardo in anyway, this applies to anyone developing code that is
meant to go into the linaro-linux base kernel.
More information about the linaro-kernel