On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 10:05 +0530, Tushar Behera wrote: > On 04/03/2012 03:59 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > > I think it makes sense if this 'upstream' doesn't include board files > > though, they should come from LT trees. > > > As for the board specific fragments, I feel it would be better if the > config-upstream tree has the initial fragment (which I suppose is > minimal enough to compile the common kernel). That way anyone taking > linux-linaro-tracking can have at least a working setup.
I thought linux-linaro-tracking was going to operate a bit like linux-next, i.e. just a merge of all the topics from LTs and working groups, and from which Linaro produces it's releases and does some CI build+test. If that's true, then anyone using that tree will always have the LT code. Though I guess if LT code breaks other boards and has to get temporarily dropped, and if that LT code was pulled in as one monolithic topic like TI and Samsung trees, then it would probably mean dropping the board config too if we had that coming from the LT tree. But in that case, does it matter that the broken board can't be built from linux-linaro-tracking? -- Tixy _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
