Hey, On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Andy Green <andy.gr...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi - > > We've been getting some good mileage from the llct-based tilt-3.4 history > tree the last months. > > However a couple of points have been raised by TI which really boil down to > being about the deal with llct post-release. We know that it goes on > mutating and tracking as it should, but the release-specific version, like > "linux-linaro-3.4" just sits there afaik. > > The points raised were: > > 1) Can we have linux stable point release content in tilt-3.4? Rather than > my doing it, isn't it better to add it to llc-3.4 and merge it on the lt > history tree periodically? That way every lt can get them from one place.
I don't see why merging the stable release contents would be an issue. We could keep updating the tree based on stable-only releases, as long as we still have at least one Landing Team interested on consuming it. This would be another job that would probably be automated by Andrey's scripts. > 2) What's the deal with things that were the latest and greatest at that > time, ie, the best "CMA" or whatever series was in tracking, but after it > got copied out to be linux-linaro-core-3.4, horrible bugs were fixed in > linux-linaro-tracking? What's happening is that TI are sticking with these > releases for a fair time as the basis for their release to customers. The problem is that the main goal of pushing new content and branches at the linux-linaro-tracking is mainly to help people getting their own stuff at upstream (by providing an unified tree which can then be used for QA and such). So, from the maintainer perspective, he'll always be moving his own stuff based on the latest upstream available, and that's why they are always integrated at the latest linux-linaro-tracking as well (mostly following upstream). If we decide to keep updating the older tree, that would probably need a substantial and not necessarily trivial work on backporting the new features and updates. Guess at least bugfixes would be ok, but I don't think would be trivial to identify just the fixes at the latest series. > I can see there's tension between tracking-style fix it for the future, and > backport to old and crusty things, there's also issue of testing, but there > must be some cases where this makes some sense. Again people looking after > the feature tree for llct are best placed to make those calls about, "hm, > that looks like it should maybe also go on the last couple of llc release > trees". > > What do you think about this? I believe we can go on case by case, if we have people requesting us to backport new features or branches over previous releases. If you have any this point (or at least from TI), we can look and see what would be needed to update at the 3.4 based trees, but would also be nice if we can also get them involved on testing, so we know things are working properly. Do you have any idea about how long TI will keep this 3.4 based tree maintained and supported? I saw you were about to move on working at the 3.6 based tree, but don't know if that's just to keep things sane (and near upstream), or because TI wants to have another well supported tree. Thanks, -- Ricardo Salveti de Araujo _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
