On 12 September 2011 06:00, Alexander Sack <a...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Christian Robottom Reis <k...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:09:55PM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >> > The term "Stage" is used to indicate builds that contain patches that >> > haven't been upstreamed. >> >> That a pretty confusing term. Are we sure we want to call it that? > > This comes out of me complaining to android team that they titled everything > that didn't use mainline kernel as "LEB", no matter how well that worked, no > matter what level of hardware enablement those builds came with, no matter > if those builds are booting to UI or not. > > To avoid that we said that the technical/functional build name shouldn't > include the term leb at all, but rather mark those builds as non-mainline in > a different way. The term LEB would then become a badge (think about > certification) that gets awarded by release team for builds _after_ they > have gone through validation/testing and have been officially confirmed to > meet LEB requirements. > > That said, I don't like the name "Stage" much either. Idea: How about we > mark the ones that are not "stage" as "mainline" and drop the "stage" marker > from the other build names?
I think stage is okay. Its short for staging which is used in the kernel as a place for things which aren't mainline. If I hear of any other issues with the name I'll think we can reevaluate it, but overall I think the term stage is okay. Plus, we should call out the builds that aren't mainline, since they should be the exception and not the rule. > -- > > - Alexander > > Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs > http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog > > > _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
