On 12 September 2011 06:00, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Christian Robottom Reis kiko@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:09:55PM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
The term "Stage" is used to indicate builds that contain patches that haven't been upstreamed.
That a pretty confusing term. Are we sure we want to call it that?
This comes out of me complaining to android team that they titled everything that didn't use mainline kernel as "LEB", no matter how well that worked, no matter what level of hardware enablement those builds came with, no matter if those builds are booting to UI or not.
To avoid that we said that the technical/functional build name shouldn't include the term leb at all, but rather mark those builds as non-mainline in a different way. The term LEB would then become a badge (think about certification) that gets awarded by release team for builds _after_ they have gone through validation/testing and have been officially confirmed to meet LEB requirements.
That said, I don't like the name "Stage" much either. Idea: How about we mark the ones that are not "stage" as "mainline" and drop the "stage" marker from the other build names?
I think stage is okay. Its short for staging which is used in the kernel as a place for things which aren't mainline.
If I hear of any other issues with the name I'll think we can reevaluate it, but overall I think the term stage is okay. Plus, we should call out the builds that aren't mainline, since they should be the exception and not the rule.
--
- Alexander
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs http://twitter.com/#%21/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog