On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Andy Green wrote: > >> Hi - >> >> I mentioned this already to npitre but for various reasons we are planning to >> target 3.0 kernel rather than linux-linaro-2.6.39 at the moment. 2.6.39 has >> some known issues like no onboard audio or HDMI audio, but since 3.0 has a >> new >> and better ALSA implementation for Panda I'm not sure it's worth spending >> time >> on when the old implementation won't really go into linux-linaro even if we >> did forward-port it again. > > $ git diff --shortstat v2.6.39..linaro-2.6.39 sound/ > 158 files changed, 20097 insertions(+), 6899 deletions(-) > > $ git diff --shortstat linaro-2.6.39..v3.0-rc4 sound/ > 65 files changed, 4586 insertions(+), 3612 deletions(-) > > So please lets stop that "linaro-2.6.39 is just 2.6.39" rhetoric when > numbers show that linaro-2.6.39 is much closer to the strictly > speaking still nonexistent 3.0 than 2.6.39. > >> When linux-linaro-3.0 is coming in the next weeks, we will use that as a base >> instead as before. > > The base will be just as good as the contributions made by people to it. > And besides a few notable exceptions such as yours, I didn't get much > from people in terms of patches and/or pull requests. > > I'm seriously starting to question the usefulness of the "Linaro" kernel > tree in fact. For one year that I've been putting such a tree together, > the feedback and response have been less than overwhelming. The idea > was to _consolidate_ the work that the various groups within Linaro was > producing into a single and coherent whole without screwing up the other > groups' work, but so far this hasn't been a great success for various > reasons. > > So I'm asking people for comments about this tree. > > - Is this useful? > > - Is it important? > > - Are _you_ using it? > > - Is solving the ARM fragmentation problem still a Linaro priority? > > - Is the Linaro kernel effective for this? > > Half a year ago when I did ask for comments about the usefulness of the > linaro-next tree, I got almost no responses as I suspected, and I > therefore dropped that tree to concentrate my efforts on the Linaro > "stable" branches. If even the stable branch doesn't steer more > interest than it does now then this effort is just wasted. Either our > process is to blame, our priorities are wrong, or some efforts are > diverted where they shouldn't. > > One reason for the Linaro tree was to help LTs moving ahead rather than > sticking to ancient kernels. Now it seems that everyone wants to get > ahead of the actual latest release from kernel.org which is a radical > shift. Does this mean that vendors and co now are getting used to the > upstream pace and they're going to move to a rebasing workflow for real, > or they're just fooled by the marketing prospects of a meaningless major > kernel version bump? If the former that would be wonderful and maybe the > Linaro kernel outlived its usefulness. If the later... well... what can > I say here? > > In any case that doesn't make a strong case for the "Linaro" kernel. > We could as well just patch the latest Ubuntu kernel, the latest Android > kernel, or whatever existing distro or vendor kernel, in order to > showcase the Linaro initiated work and results. In practice that's what > I see people doing right now anyway. Pushing that work into mainline is > what matters the most in the end, and _that_ should always be Linaro's > top priority. > > I don't feel compelled to fight for the survival of the Linaro kernel > either if it is not widely used and significantly useful. I'm more > effective fighting with mainline kernel people: it is much more > interesting and useful with lasting results. > > Opinions anyone?
+1 We are still a few patches away (about 85 at my last count) from having a good experience on the mainline with the BeagleBoard-xM. I want to see that count reach 0, hopefully by whatever is next after 3.0. No out-of-mainline patches has to be the goal. > > > Nicolas > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
