On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 05:51:11PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 07/14/2016 05:22 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:06:03AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Ok, there's no need for everyone to use the same messy tree, but perhaps
> > Linaro could participate with LTSI to help make something that more
> > people can all use?  No need to keep duplicating the same work...

> > But this is way off-topic here, sorry.

> Maybe a separate topic, and not entirely feasible for the kernel summit,
> but it might be worthwhile figuring out why companies are or are not
> using LTSI. My major problem with it was always that it is just a collection

I do think that could be a useful topic to cover in stable discussions
at KS, we've always focused on the stable trees but there's a much
broader spectrum of work going on there.

> of patches, not a kernel tree, meaning merges or cherry-picks are non-trivial.
> Sure, one can create a kernel tree from it, but that is not the same.

This is actually the main reason why I've never got around to pushing
things back into LTSI (it has been a little while since I last did that
admittedly).  The effort involved in figuring out the tooling for LTSI
always got in the way before anything productive came of it, having a
directly usable git tree would be *so* much easier.