On 23 June 2011 03:45, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
>> Or we could just use continuous integration where there are no
>> freezes, just per change regression tests.
>
> thats the idealistic goal yes, but getting even close there takes a
> bit and I a
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
> Or we could just use continuous integration where there are no
> freezes, just per change regression tests.
thats the idealistic goal yes, but getting even close there takes a
bit and I am not sure if full continuous integration in the sense
Or we could just use continuous integration where there are no
freezes, just per change regression tests.
-Zach
On 15 June 2011 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 15 June 2011 15:40, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> if we want to guarantee
>>> that QEMU and th
On 15 June 2011 15:40, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> if we want to guarantee
>> that QEMU and the kernel work together I think we really
>> need to pretty much freeze the kernel two weeks before
>> QEMU's release date, in order to have a fighting chance
>> at
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Peter Maydell wrote:
> The underlying cause here is that QEMU's models are not
> tested in any formal way against a specification or
> against a test suite used for validating the hardware.
> The main test is "does it boot Linux?". So it's inevitable
> that new kernel features
On 15 June 2011 11:14, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Anyway, I really hope this is unlikely to happen for now
[I should start this email with a disclaimer: this isn't
intended to be finger pointing, just an explanation of why
we should expect and plan for QEMU breakage rather than
hoping it is unlikely
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 15 June 2011 00:47, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Mounir Bsaibes wrote:
>>> Does the kernel have to boot under the latest QEMU release?
>>
>> For device tree support I would think so. An older Linaro release for
>> U-Boot
On 15 June 2011 00:47, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Mounir Bsaibes wrote:
>> Does the kernel have to boot under the latest QEMU release?
>
> For device tree support I would think so. An older Linaro release for
> U-Boot should be fine too. Maybe John Crigby could provide more deta
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Mounir Bsaibes wrote:
> Nico,
> Is there any dependency on the Toolchain WG?
> Does the latest kernel have to be built using the latest Toolchain release?
No, it doesn't have to. That would be a good thing to do nevertheless.
> Does the kernel have to boot under the latest
On 14 June 2011 15:16, Mounir Bsaibes wrote:
> Nico,
> Is there any dependency on the Toolchain WG?
> Does the latest kernel have to be built using the latest Toolchain release?
Good question. As we get the CI loop going, I imagine that we'll want the
kernel building with multiple tool chains th
Nico,
Is there any dependency on the Toolchain WG?
Does the latest kernel have to be built using the latest Toolchain release?
Does the kernel have to boot under the latest QEMU release?
Thanks,
Mounir
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> As you might know already, Linaro is m
As you might know already, Linaro is moving to a monthly release of
technology preview for most of the components being worked on. This
obviously includes the kernel, so some coordination amongst all people
involved is required.
It was decided that those releases would happen on the last Thurs
12 matches
Mail list logo
