On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > On 31 January 2012 11:19, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > > > >> They love our builds, but they'd really like it if they could get > >> stock AOSP builds for their boards on stable kernels that they can > >> work with using fastboot that have been CI tested and QA'd. > >> > >> I'm not advocating for the wholesale destruction of our current way of > >> life, tip kernels, tip toolchains, linaro-android-media-create, but I > >> would like to move in a direction that gives our users what they want. > > > > And by the time you do that i.e. stable kernel and so on, then those > > customers will come back asking for this and that new cool feature > > available in the latest upstream kernel and ask you to backport it to > > your stable kernel. > > Nico, you bring up a good point. Consolidating and upstreaming core > ARM features that exist across each architecture is our main job. > > The customer ask remains the same though. If we deliver a platform > with a set of features, customers don't want any of those features to > break when we give them an upgrade.
You just can't have it both ways. If you focus on a stable platform then you cannot have the latest features. If you develop new features, it obviously can't be stable. But whatever you do, customers will always ask for both in a single package. I think it is a matter of clearly defining what we do, and also what we don't (and shouldn't) do. Expectations about Linaro cannot be the same as for Ubuntu/Canonical or Android/Google. Nicolas _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
