On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 17:45 +0800, Andy Green wrote: > On 04/02/2012 05:31 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 20:59 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > >> We could have a separate topic branch for the linaro-base and ubuntu and > >> fragments (not board specific), as there is no linaro-base or ubuntu > >> topic in linux-linaro. Otherwise the generic features (not board > >> specific) should also add the config fragments to their topic branches. > >> So the android fragment could live in the android topic as well. > > > > I'm not sure I follow this, can you give some examples of what files > > live in what repos in what branches? > > This is all being made up as we go along, nobody is using this new flow yet.
I believe we (ARM LT) are expecting to use it imminently, so that it why I'm trying to work out what to do. [snipped my suggestion about organising lots of config fragment] > I don't think this is a good way. There are two things we found having > already being doing "config fragments" for about a year in TI LT repo. > > - having multiple defconfigs is a mistake, they will diverge > > - the fragments themselves rot quickly from changes in mainline, both > by way of defaults changing and diffing the defconfig not being a > perfect fit for what it represents (the defconfig is an output of > another process out of sight with its own inputs, so the patches in the > tree changing it are not the only things touching it). In particular > it's almost impossible to hold the line with multiple finegrained config > changes in one topic, we now squash everything into one config patch per > topic. I can see that lot's of fragments might be a problem, but I think we need some middle ground. _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
