Re: meta-fsl-arm

Re: meta-fsl-arm

[Mahadevan Mahesh-R9AADQ]

Hi Eric,
(Copying the mail-list, so everyone can get a clear picture on the change proposed)
Thank you for your e-mail. Do not take this as a lack of trust in the mail-list. 

The Freescale release branches are outdated and there have been bug-fixes made post releases that are now available on a different branch.

Going forward we would like to make all these fixes available to customers that use MX53 & MX28. Hence proposing we switch to this branch.

Best regards,
-Mahesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Bénard [mailto:eric@eukrea.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:26 AM
To: Mahadevan Mahesh-R9AADQ
Subject: meta-fsl-arm

Hi Mahadevan,

I'm sorry of the lack of trust you meet on the mailing list for your
patches.

If you want to give a chance to your patches to get applied : may you
please try to give more arguments and maybe get an official Freescale
policy on why this branch is the one to use instead of the BSP ones ?

Thanks and best regards
Eric

Re: meta-fsl-arm

[Eric Bénard]

Hi Mahesh,

Le Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:31:59 +0000,
Mahadevan Mahesh-R9AADQ <r9aadq@freescale.com> a écrit :
> The Freescale release branches are outdated and there have been bug-fixes made post releases that are now available on a different branch.
> 
> Going forward we would like to make all these fixes available to customers that use MX53 & MX28. Hence proposing we switch to this branch.
> 
so as BSP based branches seems to be a requirement for the
meta-fsl-arm 1.4 release, maybe you could base the maintain branch on
top of the BSP branch so that we get a clear view of the fixes you
have there and get a chance to apply these on the top of the actual
BSP ?

Thanks
Eric