-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:11:28AM +0000, Andy Green
wrote:
>  
>> If the kernel that devirginator drops in the device
on GTA-01 also has
>> the NOR patch, it will create a (useless, but
logically present) MTD
>> device representing the (IIRC, on GTA-01
nonexistent) NOR device's
>> footprint and make the partitions match up.  The
MTD ROM support should
>> accept it despite the Flash probe would fail, so it
is one way to get a
>> unified behaviour.
> 
> this is not good.  Since GTA01 is already deployed, I
think it will
> generate a nightmare for updating and compatibility. 
GTA01 partition
> tables have to be as-is.

Fine.  This is actually compatible with the release/backport
thing I
proposed.

>> We could treat the GTA-01 low level software like
kernel, U-Boot and
>> devirginator (I guess generally usermode code
doesn't care much what it
>> runs on) as "released" for GTA-01 and
instead of trying to target -01
>> and -02 for new development work -- which focuses
on a GTA-02 that can
>> go to production -- we find or fund a guy
interested to manage
>> backporting newer GTA-02 work on to a
"stable" GTA-01 tree -- it's a bit
>> like the 2.6 stable branch kernel maintainer.
> 
> I don't think this is acceptable.  People bought GTA01
in the

"acceptable" for whom is a cogent question here.

> expectation that we would once finish the software
stack for it.  If OM
> doesn't deliver a working phone software stack to them,
they will feel
> tricked into buying a device based on wrong
pretext/suggestions.  It
> sends a really bad message to the community.

The task that seems most important to me is to get GTA-02 in
shape for
production so our customer is able to go on.  If we fought
the Good
Fight for GTA-01, updated it daily but the customer is not
able to make
a product, it would be a failure on our part I think.  In
the scenario I
outline, we are constantly handing the GTA-01 guy(s) the
pieces they
need to continue a living codebase.  In fact there is a
GTA-02 BECAUSE
the customer does not want to go to bat with GTA-01.

> So for the time being, I'd think it is not acceptable
to drop GTA01
> support from anything.  All features (unless hardware
like
> wifi/accelerometer/... is required) have to be en par
on both units.
> Also, there is no technical reason why they'd not be.

Absolutely, no reason the patches can't be used by GTA-01. 
But it seems
the customer will not be making GTA-01s.

- -Andy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


iD8DBQFHb9EROjLpvpq7dMoRAsZPAJ9URNeB3qdLgXOeDfWUfXvVBuj6WACf
Qvug
fZVoqsUcY9LP69Cc9sRBNFw=
=ZQ7K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----