Yeah, that should be okay. Though we could do it using a separate branch. That may make ongoing maintenance easier. We can name the branch:
linaro_android_4.0.4_origen
Will that work?
On 9 April 2012 07:20, Annamalai Lakshmanan annamalai.lakshmanan@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Zach,
I would like to create a branch in /device/linaro/origen/.git: This will enable me push changes for 3.3 kernel and track it seperately. 3.3 is still not very matures so it currently requires changes like disabling HW rendering , etc..
Would it be acceptable for you, if so please let me know since branch creation would require admin right.
With Regards, Annamalai
Zach,
This should be good. I will push patches into them.
With Regards, Annamalai
On 9 April 2012 19:12, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
Yeah, that should be okay. Though we could do it using a separate branch. That may make ongoing maintenance easier. We can name the branch:
linaro_android_4.0.4_origen
Will that work?
On 9 April 2012 07:20, Annamalai Lakshmanan annamalai.lakshmanan@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Zach,
I would like to create a branch in /device/linaro/origen/.git: This will enable me push changes for 3.3 kernel and track it seperately. 3.3 is still not very matures so it currently requires changes like disabling HW rendering , etc..
Would it be acceptable for you, if so please let me know since branch creation would require admin right.
With Regards, Annamalai
-- 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
Hi,
I would rather suggest naming the branch as linaro_android_4.0.4_tracking. This name would indicate why it has been created.
Regards, Vishal
On 9 April 2012 21:54, Annamalai Lakshmanan <annamalai.lakshmanan@linaro.org
wrote:
Zach,
This should be good. I will push patches into them.
With Regards, Annamalai
On 9 April 2012 19:12, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
Yeah, that should be okay. Though we could do it using a separate branch. That may make ongoing maintenance easier. We can name the branch:
linaro_android_4.0.4_origen
Will that work?
On 9 April 2012 07:20, Annamalai Lakshmanan annamalai.lakshmanan@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Zach,
I would like to create a branch in /device/linaro/origen/.git: This will enable me push changes for 3.3 kernel and track it seperately. 3.3 is still not very matures so it currently requires changes like disabling HW rendering , etc..
Would it be acceptable for you, if so please let me know since branch creation would require admin right.
With Regards, Annamalai
-- 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
linaro-android mailing list linaro-android@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-android
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).
I'm fine with linaro_android_4.0.4_tracking. Vishal, would you make the branch for Annamalai?
This name would indicate why it has been created.
Regards, Vishal
On 9 April 2012 21:54, Annamalai Lakshmanan annamalai.lakshmanan@linaro.org wrote:
Zach,
This should be good. I will push patches into them.
With Regards, Annamalai
On 9 April 2012 19:12, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
Yeah, that should be okay. Though we could do it using a separate branch. That may make ongoing maintenance easier. We can name the branch:
linaro_android_4.0.4_origen
Will that work?
On 9 April 2012 07:20, Annamalai Lakshmanan annamalai.lakshmanan@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Zach,
I would like to create a branch in /device/linaro/origen/.git: This will enable me push changes for 3.3 kernel and track it seperately. 3.3 is still not very matures so it currently requires changes like disabling HW rendering , etc..
Would it be acceptable for you, if so please let me know since branch creation would require admin right.
With Regards, Annamalai
-- 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
linaro-android mailing list linaro-android@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-android
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.
I'm fine with linaro_android_4.0.4_tracking. Vishal, would you make
the branch for Annamalai?
I have created the branch "linaro_android_4.0.4_tracking" for
device/linaro/origen project.
This name would indicate why it has been created.
Regards, Vishal
On 9 April 2012 21:54, Annamalai Lakshmanan annamalai.lakshmanan@linaro.org wrote:
Zach,
This should be good. I will push patches into them.
With Regards, Annamalai
On 9 April 2012 19:12, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
Yeah, that should be okay. Though we could do it using a separate branch. That may make ongoing maintenance easier. We can name the branch:
linaro_android_4.0.4_origen
Will that work?
On 9 April 2012 07:20, Annamalai Lakshmanan annamalai.lakshmanan@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Zach,
I would like to create a branch in /device/linaro/origen/.git: This will enable me push changes for 3.3 kernel and track it seperately. 3.3 is still not very matures so it currently requires changes like disabling HW rendering , etc..
Would it be acceptable for you, if so please let me know since branch creation would require admin right.
With Regards, Annamalai
-- 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
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
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?
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.
-- 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
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.
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
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
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.
good ... just scared that we start keeping stable kernels in our main CI loops (that we have no mandate to test and release) rather than going all-in on tip.
On 10 April 2012 11:46, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
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.
good ... just scared that we start keeping stable kernels in our main CI loops (that we have no mandate to test and release) rather than going all-in on tip.
No, no... its all just about staging the changes in given our existing infrastructure, tools and resources.
-- 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@lists.linaro.org
-
Alexander Sack -
Annamalai Lakshmanan -
Vishal Bhoj -
Zach Pfeffer