On 5 August 2013 03:45, Andy Green <andy.gr...@linaro.org> wrote:
> 1) There seems to be two choices, linux-linaro-lsk and > linux-linaro-lsk-android. > > I chose the android one, I assume it has the same "androidization" > series on top that linux-linaro-core-tracking used at 3.10? Are there > any other differences? > There are some patches to improve the performance of the interactive scheduler in there as well. Currently we didn't take John's branch in order to make it easier to track the Google stuff while we're preparing for release, that will get filtered in sometime this week. There may be other stuff lurking in linux-linaro that I'm not aware of, everything is supposed to be individually selected for backport. > 3) In our LT tree we patch mainline to remove all warnings coming with > our defconfig. Then if we see any warnings coming, we know it's our > fault and we need to go fix it. Are you interested in taking a > similar approach? > We will take suitably non-invasive warning fixes and obviously any actual bug fixes that are fixed in the upstream LTS but we won't actively go looking for warnings in anything that's not built for testing of LSK ourselves. There is no commitment to making things in the underlying kernel warning free. > 4) Maybe this is too much thinking ahead, but shouldn't these lsk > branches be versioned, like linux-linaro-lsk-3.10? Otherwise when the > next lsk version is announced there'll be a problem. > This is what I inherited, we'd certainly start versioning things when there's more than one LSK around but having a "this is the default version" pointer does seem useful. I was intending to add versioned branches as part of the official release (which should be 13.08 now Greg's announced v3.10 as a LTS).
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
