On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 17:45 +0800, Andy Green wrote:
On 04/02/2012 05:31 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 20:59 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
We could have a separate topic branch for the linaro-base and ubuntu and fragments (not board specific), as there is no linaro-base or ubuntu topic in linux-linaro. Otherwise the generic features (not board specific) should also add the config fragments to their topic branches. So the android fragment could live in the android topic as well.
I'm not sure I follow this, can you give some examples of what files live in what repos in what branches?
This is all being made up as we go along, nobody is using this new flow yet.
I believe we (ARM LT) are expecting to use it imminently, so that it why I'm trying to work out what to do.
[snipped my suggestion about organising lots of config fragment]
I don't think this is a good way. There are two things we found having already being doing "config fragments" for about a year in TI LT repo.
having multiple defconfigs is a mistake, they will diverge
the fragments themselves rot quickly from changes in mainline, both
by way of defaults changing and diffing the defconfig not being a perfect fit for what it represents (the defconfig is an output of another process out of sight with its own inputs, so the patches in the tree changing it are not the only things touching it). In particular it's almost impossible to hold the line with multiple finegrained config changes in one topic, we now squash everything into one config patch per topic.
I can see that lot's of fragments might be a problem, but I think we need some middle ground.