From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <55F02DB0.1090801@xenomai.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 09:01:36 -0400
From: Jorge Ramirez Ortiz <jro@xenomai.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20150909113151.0fed6fd7@md1em3qc>
In-Reply-To: <20150909113151.0fed6fd7@md1em3qc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Xenomai] 4.x merge
List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project <xenomai.xenomai.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xenomai.org/mailman/options/xenomai>,
 <mailto:xenomai-request@xenomai.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai/>
List-Post: <mailto:xenomai@xenomai.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xenomai-request@xenomai.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai>,
 <mailto:xenomai-request@xenomai.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>, Xenomai <xenomai@xenomai.org>
Cc: "KISZKA, JAN" <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>

On 09/09/2015 05:31 AM, Henning Schild wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> i am about to merge ipipe into a more recent kernel and would like to
> discuss the approach with you guys. As far as i have seen and been told
> i should merge and not rebase.
> 
> My current plan:
> 1 choose release (4.1 since its LTS)

Sounds good to me.
We are working on 3.18 for [0] - SMP still not functional
If you take lead on 4.0 I can then validate the arm64 bit port we do on this [1]
 SoC as well

[0] https://www.96boards.org/products/ce/hikey/
[1] https://www.96boards.org/products/ce/dragonboard410c/


> 2 merge it into ipipe
> 3 resolve obvious conflicts
> 4 commit broken merge
> 5 repair common bits and x86
> 6 publish my tree for others to repair other archs
> 
> Steps 2,3 and 4 might become iterations stepping over 3.19 and 4.0. The
> merges will not work but the smaller steps will result in less
> conflicts at a time.
> 
> What do you guys think of the approach? Are my version choices sane or
> are there any reasons to consider other releases as well?
> 
> Henning
> 

-- 
jro