On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Christian Robottom Reis <k...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:05:20AM -0200, Ricardo Salveti wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Nicolas Pitre >> <nicolas.pi...@canonical.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Oliver Grawert wrote: >> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Ricardo Salveti wrote: >> >> That's understandable. Now the question is why John is maintaining and >> >> packaging a tree that also incorporate the Ubuntu sauce on it? >> > >> > I think that the main reason is that this was much easier to have a >> > packaged initial release by simply piggybacking on the existing Ubuntu >> > infrastructure. But John's tree and mine are still separate. >> >> Ok, so there's nothing that guarantees that John will continue using >> the same Ubuntu infrastructure and sauce in the future. > > I want to put a firm statement in here that Linaro are committed to > supporting Ubuntu on ARM through our kernel work, and that if it's > necessary for us to support the kernel maintenance process then we will > do it -- so there is a firm guarantee from me that we'll always be open > to working out what outputs you need. > > I'd like to talk over the specific case of SAUCE patches, because I'm > not entirely sure a) how much effort maintaining them is required and b) > if we need to carry the Intel (and other arches) specific bits of SAUCE > as well. > > I'm getting the curious feeling that the above isn't clear to the people > on this thread, so hopefully this is a step towards clarity. Kiko,
Thanks for the clarification. You have answered my only question which was if Linaro engineering was willing to support the inclusion of Ubuntu Sauce. John _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
