Open zpzigi754 opened 10 months ago
As I remember, @bitboom suggested to use tags instead of using branches. We need a versioning at this point before proceeding with the eac5 work. Can we decide now what to use between tagging or taking a branch for beta0?
For the reference, linux-cca, kvm-tool and qemu use branch while tf-rmm uses tagging like the below.
linux-cca (https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-cca)
[branch]
cca/rmm-v1.0-eac2
cca/rmm-v1.0-eac5
cca/rfc-v1
kvmtool-cca (https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/kvmtool-cca)
[branch]
cca/rmm-v1.0-eac2
cca/rmm-v1.0-eac5
cca/rfc-v1
qemu-cca (https://jpbrucker.net/git/qemu)
[branch]
cca/rmm-v1.0-eac5
cca/rmm-v1.0-eac2
cca/rfc-v2
cca/rfc-v1
tf-rmm (https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-RMM/tf-rmm.git/refs/)
[tag]
rmm-spec-v1.0-eac5
rmm-spec-v1.0-eac2
tf-rmm-v0.1.0
Although I initially suggested using different branches, using either one would be totally fine.
Currently, we use
3rd-project-name
as submodule's branch name (e.g.,3rd-nw-linux
), and most of them assume using beta0 of cca spec. I think that we should change 3rd-party branch's name toproject-name-version
so that it can reflect the version of spec (e.g.,nw-linux-eac2
).islet
's branch could be also distinguished with the spec version too (e.g.,main
->beta0
). These would facilitate maintaining our implementation according to the different spec design.