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