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
--
Andy Green | TI Landing Team Leader
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs | Follow Linaro
http://facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106 -
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://linaro.org/linaro-blog
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
