On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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 we wouldn't really want or need to follow rc's and master always being stable should be the target, but people will want "releases." There is no reason you can't support both. Take dtc as an example, the release process is someone requests Jon to make a release because they want some feature not in a tagged release, so he tags master and we have a "release." So we can either make something up for versions and cadence, follow the kernel, or do both. I would view syncing with kernel versions to be only for a transition period to ease the concerns of those who are keeping their dtb version aligned to kernel version. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
