On 04/02/2012 12:59 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > On 03/31/2012 01:17 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:15 -0700, John Stultz wrote: >>> Right right right. I forgot with the new topic branch method, everything >>> based on mainline and not a tree Andrey maintains, so you don't have a >>> reference to the config tree. >> >> Yes, Andrey's tree is a merge of all the LT and working group topics. >> >>> >>> In that case, just go ahead and push the full config to the config tree. >>> If we need to do have fullly-enabled vs upstream builds we can deal with >>> the warnings in the latter case (or maybe further split the board >>> configs into -upstream and -lt ?). >> >> So this means Landing Teams should host the configs for their boards and >> you will host the linaro-base, ubuntu and android fragments? > > We could have a separate topic branch for the linaro-base and ubuntu and > fragments (not board specific), as there is no linaro-base or ubuntu > topic in linux-linaro. Otherwise the generic features (not board > specific) should also add the config fragments to their topic branches. > So the android fragment could live in the android topic as well.
This is definitely the right way. -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
