rfc [RFC] New Naming Convention for Kernel Source Trees

[martinayotte]

16 minutes ago, Igor said:

The question is shell we now/today move sunxi64-dev with 5.3.y under arm64-current common branch ... which is IMO better than 4.19 on most of Allwinner arm64 hw.

Most probably, because DEV will then be switched to 5.4.y soon ...

 

EDIT: BTW, I've just create a new 5.3 tag, in case I'm starting working on 5.4.y ...

[Igor]

Now there are two merge requests. 2nd shell be merged to 1st, tested and then 1st (branch arm64) to master. When checked.

https://github.com/armbian/build/pull/1586

https://github.com/armbian/build/pull/1587

I leave this separate for better visibility.

 

Now we get additional branch "current" which has to be enabled elsewhere. 

After this gets tested & merged legacy cleaning party?

[Igor]

New naming convention is getting to its final stage of development. Beside name I also RFC packaging patch which had hard coded dev/next values inside so it was a must to deal with.

 

Since we have new package naming and we will need to create some upgrade automatism in any case ... shell we change to more logical/proper versioning too? We had debate over but can't find it. Was it on Github? @lanefu New thread for that?

[lanefu]

7 hours ago, Igor said:

New naming convention is getting to its final stage of development. Beside name I also RFC packaging patch which had hard coded dev/next values inside so it was a must to deal with.

 

Since we have new package naming and we will need to create some upgrade automatism in any case ... shell we change to more logical/proper versioning too? We had debate over but can't find it. Was it on Github? @lanefu New thread for that?

New thread here! 

I'll add more to original post as old information is found....  Can't think clearly right now.