Re: devicetree repository separation/migration

On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 13:20 -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Rob Herring [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

One way to minimize the inconvenience is keep versioning and dev
cycles in sync with the kernel. We could also start doing things to
align the kernel workflow with how things will work when we do have a
separate repository.

I don't think aligning development cycles is what we want most here it
might be useful for us in Linux but it'll make things difficult for
other projects since they're not aware of our release cycles. The
device tree bindings and DT contents in that repo should be "always
stable", i.e. no merge window / rc concept. As soon as something goes
in it's live, and from then out only fixes to the DTS files (or
appending the binding).

I agree, but I also think it would be useful to draw the occasional line
in the sand and do e.g. monthly or quarterly tagged releases e.g. for
distros who want a tarball package to work off.

There's no reason for that to be tied to any other projects dev cycle
though.

Ian.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree-compiler" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html