So our current naming scheme is awful.
staging- landing- tracking-
ick ick ick
We'd like to make this better, here's the idea:
old new
staging-vexpress-a9 ics-armlt-stable-gcc46-vexpress-a9
tracking-panda ics-tilt-tracking-gcc46-panda
aosp-panda ics-aosp-stable-gcc44-panda
staging-imx53 ics-freescalelt-stable-gcc46-imx53
panda-4.4 ics-tilt-upstream-gcc46-panda
landing-snowball ics-igloo-stable-gcc46-panda
landing-panda ics-omapzoom-stable-gcc46-panda, keep
staging-panda ics-tilt-stable-gcc46-panda
staging-origen ics-samsunglt-stable-gcc46-origen
panda ics-kwg-upstream-gcc46-panda
panda-4.4 ics-aosp-stable-gcc44-panda
Its basically,
<type of Android>-<kernel source>-<kernel type>-<toolchain version>-<target>
Hopefully this will allow people to figure out what's what.
Comments, questions, concerns?
On 30 January 2012 20:24, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
<type of Android>-<kernel source>-<kernel type>-<toolchain version>-<target>
I can see a couple of situations where that can would produce duplicates (e.g. 2 otherwise identical Panda builds, one with the non-free drivers integrated and one to keep the FSF guys happy)...
Other than that, explains things better than the current naming scheme.
ttyl bero
2012/1/30 Bernhard Rosenkränzer bernhard.rosenkranzer@linaro.org:
On 30 January 2012 20:24, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
<type of Android>-<kernel source>-<kernel type>-<toolchain version>-<target>
I can see a couple of situations where that can would produce duplicates (e.g. 2 otherwise identical Panda builds, one with the non-free drivers integrated and one to keep the FSF guys happy)...
Good point Bero. We can add:
<type of Android>-<kernel source>-<kernel type>-<toolchain version>-blob-<target>
<type of Android>-<kernel source>-<kernel type>-<toolchain version>-open-<target>
Other than that, explains things better than the current naming scheme.
ttyl bero
I'm all for it as long as snowball gets named 'ics-igloo-stable-gcc46-snwoball' rather than 'ics-igloo-stable-gcc46-panda'.
Mathieu.
On 12-01-30 12:24 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
So our current naming scheme is awful.
staging- landing- tracking-
ick ick ick
We'd like to make this better, here's the idea:
old new
staging-vexpress-a9 ics-armlt-stable-gcc46-vexpress-a9
tracking-panda ics-tilt-tracking-gcc46-panda
aosp-panda ics-aosp-stable-gcc44-panda
staging-imx53 ics-freescalelt-stable-gcc46-imx53
panda-4.4 ics-tilt-upstream-gcc46-panda
landing-snowball ics-igloo-stable-gcc46-panda
landing-panda ics-omapzoom-stable-gcc46-panda, keep
staging-panda ics-tilt-stable-gcc46-panda
staging-origen ics-samsunglt-stable-gcc46-origen
panda ics-kwg-upstream-gcc46-panda
panda-4.4 ics-aosp-stable-gcc44-panda
Its basically,
<type of Android>-<kernel source>-<kernel type>-<toolchain version>-<target>
Hopefully this will allow people to figure out what's what.
Comments, questions, concerns?
Aye. :) Good catch.
On 30 January 2012 14:37, Mathieu Poirier mathieu.poirier@linaro.org wrote:
I'm all for it as long as snowball gets named 'ics-igloo-stable-gcc46-snwoball' rather than 'ics-igloo-stable-gcc46-panda'.
Mathieu.
On 12-01-30 12:24 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
So our current naming scheme is awful.
staging- landing- tracking-
ick ick ick
We'd like to make this better, here's the idea:
old new
staging-vexpress-a9 ics-armlt-stable-gcc46-vexpress-a9
tracking-panda ics-tilt-tracking-gcc46-panda
aosp-panda ics-aosp-stable-gcc44-panda
staging-imx53 ics-freescalelt-stable-gcc46-imx53
panda-4.4 ics-tilt-upstream-gcc46-panda
landing-snowball ics-igloo-stable-gcc46-panda
landing-panda ics-omapzoom-stable-gcc46-panda, keep
staging-panda ics-tilt-stable-gcc46-panda
staging-origen ics-samsunglt-stable-gcc46-origen
panda ics-kwg-upstream-gcc46-panda
panda-4.4 ics-aosp-stable-gcc44-panda
Its basically,
<type of Android>-<kernel source>-<kernel type>-<toolchain version>-<target>
Hopefully this will allow people to figure out what's what.
Comments, questions, concerns?
linaro-android mailing list linaro-android@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-android
Those are fine names. I have no objections.
The full names are kind of cumbersome to use in everyday speech so I predict nicknames :)
And I think we need a frequently linked-to wiki page explaining the whole idea and also presenting rationales for each one of them.
The flop side of such an improvement is to decide which wiki pages need to be updated and which are better left alone. I see work coming my way.
/Tony
On 30 January 2012 21:39, Zach Pfeffer zach.pfeffer@linaro.org wrote:
Aye. :) Good catch.
On 30 January 2012 14:37, Mathieu Poirier mathieu.poirier@linaro.org wrote:
I'm all for it as long as snowball gets named 'ics-igloo-stable-gcc46-snwoball' rather than 'ics-igloo-stable-gcc46-panda'.
Mathieu.
On 12-01-30 12:24 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
So our current naming scheme is awful.
staging- landing- tracking-
ick ick ick
We'd like to make this better, here's the idea:
old new
staging-vexpress-a9 ics-armlt-stable-gcc46-vexpress-a9
tracking-panda ics-tilt-tracking-gcc46-panda
aosp-panda ics-aosp-stable-gcc44-panda
staging-imx53 ics-freescalelt-stable-gcc46-imx53
panda-4.4 ics-tilt-upstream-gcc46-panda
landing-snowball ics-igloo-stable-gcc46-panda
landing-panda ics-omapzoom-stable-gcc46-panda, keep
staging-panda ics-tilt-stable-gcc46-panda
staging-origen ics-samsunglt-stable-gcc46-origen
panda ics-kwg-upstream-gcc46-panda
panda-4.4 ics-aosp-stable-gcc44-panda
Its basically,
<type of Android>-<kernel source>-<kernel type>-<toolchain
version>-<target>
Hopefully this will allow people to figure out what's what.
Comments, questions, concerns?
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
linaro-android mailing list linaro-android@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-android
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?
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?
/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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Although I am late to the game, i think the names are a much better improvement over the current ones
On 31 January 2012 11:41, 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
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
-- 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 Zach,
This is old topic but I have one question.
On 02/01/2012 01:41 AM, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
Okay so taking everyone's input to-date the current list is:
<target>-<android>-<toolchain>-<kernel_origin>-<kernel_type>-<enablement_type>
tracking-panda panda-ics-gcc46-tilt-tracking-blob
aosp-panda panda-ics-gcc44-aosp-stable-blob
What is the difference between "blob" and "open" for the <enablement_type>?
Does it mean the "blob" include closed binaries but "open" only use open sources and no binary blobs?
Thanks,
Akira
On 7 March 2012 18:04, Akira Tsukamoto akira.tsukamoto@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Zach,
This is old topic but I have one question.
On 02/01/2012 01:41 AM, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
Okay so taking everyone's input to-date the current list is:
<target>-<android>-<toolchain>-<kernel_origin>-<kernel_type>-<enablement_type>
tracking-panda panda-ics-gcc46-tilt-tracking-blob
aosp-panda panda-ics-gcc44-aosp-stable-blob
What is the difference between "blob" and "open" for the <enablement_type>?
blob == has binary blobs in the image such as GPS proprietary driver. open == free of proprietary drivers
Does it mean the "blob" include closed binaries but "open" only use open sources and no binary blobs?
Indeed.
anmar
Hi Anmer,
What is the difference between "blob" and "open" for the<enablement_type>?
blob == has binary blobs in the image such as GPS proprietary driver. open == free of proprietary drivers
Does it mean the "blob" include closed binaries but "open" only use open sources and no binary blobs?
Indeed.
Not it is clear to me. Thank you,
Akira
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:02:30 +0100 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?
My understanding is that what we want to do is to avoid riddles and confusion, that's why we use consistent and comprehensive scheme. People can use in their minds and common talk whatever nicknames they like, as long as official names are clear, it's ok. (And yep, the easiest nicknaming scheme would be abbreviations like i-v-46-a-s-o ;-) )
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 13:24 -0600, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
We'd like to make this better, here's the idea:
old new
staging-vexpress-a9 ics-armlt-stable-gcc46-vexpress-a9
When renaming, can we drop the '-a9' from vexpress names, these builds now also work on a5 and a15 as well :-)
My suggestion for naming convention would be to put the board name at the beginning as I believe that would make it easier for people looking for downloads, or at least near enough to the beginning so that directory listings would get sorted by board name. E.g.
ics-vexpress-armlt-stable-gcc46
With the proposal as is, they would get sorted by originating team.
Hello,
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:16:59 +0000 "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" tixy@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 13:24 -0600, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
We'd like to make this better, here's the idea:
old new
staging-vexpress-a9 ics-armlt-stable-gcc46-vexpress-a9
When renaming, can we drop the '-a9' from vexpress names, these builds now also work on a5 and a15 as well :-)
My suggestion for naming convention would be to put the board name at the beginning as I believe that would make it easier for people looking for downloads, or at least near enough to the beginning so that directory listings would get sorted by board name. E.g.
ics-vexpress-armlt-stable-gcc46
With the proposal as is, they would get sorted by originating team.
Well, the original proposal kinda have it "hierarchically ordered": a platform release, using one of many kernel trees, each supporting different archs/boards, but built for a specific one. But sort matter is pretty pragmatic too of course.
linaro-android@lists.linaro.org
-
Akira Tsukamoto -
Alexander Sack -
anmar.oueja＠linaro.org -
Bernhard Rosenkränzer -
Jon Medhurst (Tixy) -
Mathieu Poirier -
Patrik Ryd -
Paul Sokolovsky -
Tony Mansson -
Zach Pfeffer