On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Ricardo Salveti <ricardo.salv...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Amit Kucheria <amit.kuche...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Ricardo Salveti >>> So in the end we'd be generating 2 sets of hwpacks per board, one >>> based on the Development Overlay (latest components, even if not >>> working properly), and one based on the Stable PPAs, that we know >>> it'll always have a better enablement. Both would be using the same >>> rootfs, as all distro related core changes will be part of the Overlay >>> PPA anyway. >>> >>> I believe this can simply things a bit, and would not consume much of >>> our time as the stable repository would just be a snapshot of a known >>> to be working development PPA. >> >> What would the monthly release be based on? The stable PPA? > > We'd be producing the release based on both the stable and > dev/unstable PPA. Stable for users that just want to have the latest > userspace working with an enabled kernel, and unstable for brave users > and linaro developers that are mainly concerned about upstream support > and enablement there.
This will certainly be useful for a certain category of users and increase our community size. However, I worry about a situation where everybody settles down on the stable release and the unstable versions don't get much testing. Can there be some commitment from those responsible for HW enablement (kernel porting, binary blobs, etc.) to provide periodic refreshes of these components? e.g. every 3 months. IOW, some predictable forward momentum for the stable releases instead of continuing divergence similar to internal BSPs. /Amit _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
