On 31 January 2012 12:52, Paul Sokolovsky paul.sokolovsky@linaro.org wrote:
Zach, so lost you from IRC and didn't proceed with it w/o confirming final bits. So, please confirm we want board name at the beginning and that we want *renames*, and I can do it tomorrow morning.
Sorry had to run off. Yup, lets move ahead with the renames.
Thanks, Paul
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:48:46 +0200 Paul Sokolovsky Paul.Sokolovsky@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:41:47 -0600 Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@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
I believe John suggested to have board name closer to the front, but not the first. After "ics" they will be j-something, and having downloads/builds be sorted by release is good thing IMHO.
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@linaro.org wrote:
On 31 January 2012 07:44, Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
On 31 January 2012 12:02, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Tony Mansson tony.mansson@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/#%21/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
linaro-android mailing list linaro-android@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-android
linaro-android mailing list linaro-android@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/#%21/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
-- Best Regards, Paul
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#%21/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog