On 06/23/2011 11:24 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
I don't know that we're hearing that all vendor trees want to be on the latest kernel. What I'm reading from Andy's perspective is that it is easier to just work directly against upstream changes that to try and figure out what all changes need to be picked into 2.6.39..
Just a precision, it is easier to target HEAD now if I know I will be asked to ship something on 3.0. Otherwise it means refining linux-linaro-2.6.39 and getting that straight and leaving a forward port job of unknown scope until 3.0 is released. In the meanwhile, I was not gaining experience with what will lead to the deliverable but with something that we already know isn't going to be shipped to the customer, and that doesn't sound like I am doing anyone any favours.
Later in the process though HEAD becomes the bad guy without a path to ship because it's permanently mutating and unstable. Then we will want to stop following HEAD and base on a stable 3.0 release, linux-linaro-3.0 if it's there or upstream 3.0 release plus stable point releases if not.
So while there's an argument we should keep an eye on tracking HEAD all the time anyway, it's not enough by itself.
-Andy