Re: edison/denzil patches (post-1.1.2 and 1.2.1)

David Stewart

Hey Matthew -

From: yocto-bounces@... [mailto:yocto-
bounces@...] On Behalf Of McClintock Matthew-B29882
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 9:01 AM
I understand. I'm fine with adding stuff to the edison branch for now
and we can worry about another official release sometime in the future
(or never). I'm mostly wanting a place I can tell people to get the
(working) code from for our targets. And ideally it's on and not or
This comes down to a resource trade-off, which is why I'm replying. :-)

As an open source project and not a product, we have to set some boundaries on how long we will put effort on a given release. It also seems prudent to treat our release branches consistently as well. Besides tagging branches when we release them, I think we want to leave the head of the release branches in some known good state. That known good state has always been "passed our release criteria" which includes QA, release notes, etc.

So what if we create a separate branch off of edison, something like edison-fsl? Then you could base your patches against it, but we leave edison in the known good state?

Just for some more context, we just release our SDK off of edison and
I expect plenty of activity around bugfixes and back porting commits.
I would like this work to be available to all attempting to build
edison as well.
I know... I'm in agony that we have run out of resources to continue to put effort into edison (or "Eddie" as I call him now). Hopefully the above compromise serves your needs and keeps our resource commitment and known good state assumptions in check.

Whatcha think?

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.