On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:24:18AM -0400, Nicolas Dechesne wrote:
is that documented anywhere, why we (Linaro) are doing LSK at all?
Sadly no, this is something I've been reverse engineering myself. I do have some notes but I'd need to scrub them before sharing them.
Broadly speaking it's to provide a basis for product stabalisation as opposed to development, a less moving target.
especially, i am interested to understand who is actually going to be a downstream of LSK? e.g. who is going to benefits from that work. I am not saying it's wrong to do it, just want to understand why we do it.
The main users are expected to be members and community members who want Linaro kernel work in something with a reasonable supported lifespan that they can base their own supported products on.
i tend to agree with some of the arguments from Andy (not all ;-) and I definitely see and understand the value of the LLCT as it provides a 'baseline' for LTs to 'move' forward, but LSK is not about moving toward upstream.
Like I say hopefully that's something that the tie back to upstream is helping to address; providing an example of doing both at the same time.