On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Andy Green <andy.gr...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 10:36 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > Hi - > > The second branch is "tilt-android-tracking". This is our main >> tracking branch tilt-tracking for Panda enablement we have been >> running for some months combined with >> "linaro-androidization-__**tracking" above. >> >> >> >> Sounds like an interesting approach to me. Will you try keep this >> running as a pilot for one linus head cycle? I think that would give us >> good initial data to decide how to do all this officially across the >> organization in future. >> > > Yes that's my plan. It should be at its worst after 3.1 release in terms > of conflicts needing fixing for tracking, then at its worst around 3.2-rc7 > or whatever when next common shows up in terms of refreshing against its > 'upstream' so to speak. My experience with the TILT patchset and tracking > suggests we can probably cope, but well we have to see what happens during > that cycle. > > > One thing that isn't entirely clear from what you describe is whether we >> would do the forward porting for new linus HEAD versions on our own or >> if we would wait until we get a first androidization from either google >> or our members? >> > > You're right it's a good question. What I have in mind is not to leave the > patchset as the current pile of semi-history patches all intermingled but > impose topic-branch ordering on them. > > So for example, I was quite surprised to see so many patches on net core > subsystem, lots on net / wireless subsystem too all through the series. It > would be interesting to re-order the patches so we had all the net core > stuff in one layer, wireless-related stuff in another layer all together and > so on, same way tilt-tracking is composed. We don't have to get OCD about > it and do everything, we can have a topic at the end with stuff contaminated > from all directions and leave it like it is for now. But I guess most > patches will go into a topic if it is ordered correctly. > > Thats an interesting idea. We should not miss the opportunity to discuss the idea of reordering the patches with AOSP to see if they would be willing to take/collaborate on such an effort. Can you kick off such discussion on AOSP mailing lists? >> What is holding you back from using the build service atm? >> > > Nothing on our side, in fact I have requested it. > > It just needs somebody to cut-and-paste the "panda-LEB" XML and change the > kernel branch name to 'tilt-android-tracking'. There was no ETA for it so I > have rolled our own because I can't get official ones as it stands. Ongoing > official Linaro ones will be very welcome. > > OK good. It's set up but we seem to have build issues; guess android team will fix that later today: https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~linaro-android/tracking-panda/. -- Alexander Sack Technical Director, Linaro Platform Teams http://www.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
