From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Bird Subject: Re: Embedded Linux Flag Version Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:30:47 -0800 Message-ID: <4CDAD6C7.6050909@am.sony.com> References: <4CD32EA0.4070805@am.sony.com> <4CD98220.40806@am.sony.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mike Frysinger Cc: "linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org" On 11/10/2010 2:16 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:17, Tim Bird wrote: >> On 11/09/2010 03:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 18:07, Tim Bird wrote: >>>> It was noted at the summit that several CE companies and embedded >>>> projects will be using (or are already using) 2.6.35 for upcoming >>>> products or releases. This includes Sony, Google, Meego, and Linaro. On >>>> behalf of the CE Linux Forum and a number of consumer electronics >>>> companies, projects and community developers, we therefore declare >>>> 2.6.35 as a flag version of the kernel for embedded use. Several >>>> companies will be investing in development, integration and testing of >>>> this version. Entities wanting to do business with those companies would >>>> therefore be well-advised to make sure their hardware, drivers and >>>> enhancements work well with this version of the kernel. >>> wouldnt it make more sense to piggy back the extensive work going into >>> the "stable" tree ? many of the points you raise after all are the >>> entire founding point of it. plus, all the main distros form around >>> that, are spending time working on that, is marked as supported for 2 >>> or 3 years, and there is already infrastructure/framework/process in >>> place (stable@kernel.org). >>> >>> so instead of picking arbitrary versions (like 2.6.35) and needlessly >>> replicating the huge work load, simply declare these stable trees as >>> the "flag" versions. that means today it'd be 2.6.32.y. >> The fact that this tree is already a year old, and not likely to be >> brought forward for at least another 2 years is the reason we didn't >> choose it this time. Most of the high-profile, active embedded projects >> are already on 2.6.35. For companies looking to adopt a new base kernel >> in the next 12 months, I don't want to have them start with a year-old >> kernel. We did consider the utility of synchronizing with the enterprise >> stable tree, but the timing just didn't work too well this time around. > so you're suggesting this is a one-off choice. in the future, the > "flag" versions will simply piggy the existing stable trees ? Yes, if the timing works then. I can't promise anything, but I think it would be a very strong goal. -- Tim