On 10 April 2012 11:19, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
On 10 April 2012 03:23, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Vishal Bhoj vishal.bhoj@linaro.org wrote:
On 10 April 2012 08:21, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
On 9 April 2012 11:30, Vishal Bhoj vishal.bhoj@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
I would rather suggest naming the branch as linaro_android_4.0.4_tracking.
Isn't it origen specific (I guess the project is device/linaro/origen).
yes the project is origen specific(linaro_android_4.0.4_tracking) but the reason for branching is tracking kernel so the name.
Hmm...
That's an upside down way of thinking for us and what we shoot for in general. The branching should be to keep a stable build around not for tracking. Our default branch should always track tip - working or not.
Why not setup a CI build for the 12.03 build that Samsung folks can update the kernel or individual rootfs bits for if they want?
We're getting there asac. Right now we only have the horsepower to break one thing at a time, so we're branching off, then merging back in. Once LAVA improves and we get premerge testing back online then we can be a little more agile about things.
Can we just move to tip for our main build? If someone wants to keep maintaining the old+working build then we can setup a branch and special builds for them.
We did the same thing for STE with their MM upgrade. Its easier to fork off then merge back in and refactor once the extent of changes is know. We did the same thing for the init scripts. I think you can look at this as a working branch atm. Once its good, Annamali will switch back over, but until then its useful to have a working reference point.
-- 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