On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 12:05:30AM +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> Another point to mention, is the proposal to merge the board
> enablement topics first, and the generic features next (the LSK
> case). This would assume the generic topics to enable their features
> for "all the linaro supported"
On 05/06/13 04:05, the mail apparently from Andrey Konovalov included:
On 06/04/2013 03:22 AM, Andy Green wrote:
On 22/05/13 02:48, the mail apparently from Andrey Konovalov included:
The next steps are:
May 22: ll rebuild based on llct-20130521.0
May 23: ll rebuild based on llct-20130521.0, l
On 06/04/2013 03:22 AM, Andy Green wrote:
On 22/05/13 02:48, the mail apparently from Andrey Konovalov included:
The next steps are:
May 22: ll rebuild based on llct-20130521.0
May 23: ll rebuild based on llct-20130521.0, linux-linaro release
candidate, code freeze
The last llct update for th
On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 10:10 +0530, Tushar Behera wrote:
> > Timely updates on llct for each mainline -rc are very interesting
> > though, in fact we depend on them.
> >
>
> +1.
Another +1 :-)
Well, it's timely updates to linux-linaro I'm most interested in, but
that implies regular llct updates
> Timely updates on llct for each mainline -rc are very interesting
> though, in fact we depend on them.
>
+1.
--
Tushar Behera
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
On 22/05/13 02:48, the mail apparently from Andrey Konovalov included:
The next steps are:
May 22: ll rebuild based on llct-20130521.0
May 23: ll rebuild based on llct-20130521.0, linux-linaro release
candidate, code freeze
The last llct update for this cycle is scheduled on May 21,
The last l
