On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <t...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 07:14 +0800, Andy Green wrote:If >> the current one performs best and is on a random HEAD commit, we >> certainly shouldn't wind it backwards to last -rc that performs worse >> just because that's "easier to communicate". > > I agree, I wasn't envisioning winding backwards, more that we stop > winding forwards at a chosen -rc, or stop merging topics on a Friday, > bring the common tree up-to-date with the weekends Torvalds -rc, then > build, test and fix this ready for Linaro RC on the Friday.
I think we agree ... here is how I thought so far should linux-linaro could be driven forward: 1. we have an automated -tracking baseline running that always reflects how your topics look like on tip 2. linux-linaro moves forward on the day a new RC comes around. 3. linux-linaro will not wait for topics to be ready before doing the RC jump 4. in between RCs, we only move mainline on our linux-linaro release baseline forward if we see a working tracking build that wouldn't drop any topics that already made it into this RC cycle. Thoughts? -- 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
