Thanks Paul and Siva for clarifying that. I've added a new page to the spreadsheet to track the purpose of these devices.
On 23 October 2013 07:12, Paul Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > We still can't fully get rid of panda until it's no longer supported. As > long as that's the case, we'll need to support panda *and* calxeda since > they don't use the same kernel. There's also still an ArmadaXP board > lingering around (yes, Marvell Armada), which is still supported on at least > Precise. So until that's EOL in 2017, we'll need it around to do kernel > SRUs. > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Para Siva <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 23/10/13 01:56, Evan Dandrea wrote: >>> >>> For example, why do we still have a ton of pandas when we now have the >>> Calxeda? Are they wired up to anything? Can we bin them? >> >> >> We are still using one panda (qa-panda-2) for quantl kernel SRU in m-o. >> Calxeda has not been setup for that yet. May be we could do that this cycle. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
