Hello Koen, On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Koen Kooi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | If not done yet, we have to decide to go for one of two approaches. > | (1) .stable tracks .dev, but lags. Takes lots of efforts. > | (2) .stable diverges from .dev, not keeping up at some point. The > | "fish bone" branch-off approach. > | I would prefer (2), and I think Angstrom decided for this as well > | given the 2007-1 naming?? > > At the moment we try to do (1), but the long term plan is to do (2). The > ~ main issue with (2) is that it requires either picking a alomost random > (broken) branchpoint, or enforce a (brief) period of stabilizing .dev > before branching of. > And some planning ahead is needed:
- Announce when we branch off a new stable branch 1 month ahead (roughly). - Announce when a stable branch goes in unmaintained mode 3 months ahead (roughly). - Select a branch interval, proposal is once per year or half year. Say, 2008-7 or 2009.1, but at least afer meta/sdk/opkg/packaged-staging has stabilized enough in .dev? I am very much in favor of keeping the tooling/framework/classes largely feature-frozen within a stable branch, and selectively upgrade packages. > Should we create an oe-stable-branch mailinglist were patches get > presented, reviewed and signed-off on? > As .stable derives from Angstrom, I suggest merging all the effort/people/processes from Angstrom over to OpenEmbedded-wide stable should be the ideal goal. Is that achievable? Regards, -- Leon _______________________________________________ Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
