canonical-ci-engineering team mailing list archive

[Evan Dandrea <evan.dandrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Paul and Siva for clarifying that. I've added a new page to the
spreadsheet to track the purpose of these devices.

On 23 October 2013 07:12, Paul Larson <paul.larson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We still can't fully get rid of panda until it's no longer supported. As
> long as that's the case, we'll need to support panda *and* calxeda since
> they don't use the same kernel. There's also still an ArmadaXP board
> lingering around (yes, Marvell Armada), which is still supported on at least
> Precise. So until that's EOL in 2017, we'll need it around to do kernel
> SRUs.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Para Siva <para.siva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 23/10/13 01:56, Evan Dandrea wrote:
>>>
>>> For example, why do we still have a ton of pandas when we now have the
>>> Calxeda? Are they wired up to anything? Can we bin them?
>>
>>
>> We are still using one panda (qa-panda-2) for quantl kernel SRU in m-o.
>> Calxeda has not been setup for that yet. May be we could do that this cycle.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering
>> Post to     : canonical-ci-engineering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering
> Post to     : canonical-ci-engineering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>