<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Martin Jansa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin.jansa@gmail.com" target="_blank">martin.jansa@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:45:38PM -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Trevor Woerner<br>
> <<a href="mailto:trevor.woerner@linaro.org">trevor.woerner@linaro.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Hi everyone,<br>
> ><br>
> > At the last TSC meeting the topic of unmaintained layers came up. Here<br>
> > is the sorted list of master layers from the layer index [1], would it<br>
> > be possible for those in the know to indicate which layers are, or are<br>
> > suspected of being, unmaintained?<br>
><br>
> Wouldn't it be easier to do an initial sort based on commit activity ? Versus an<br>
> opt-in query ?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In case we're sticking to opt-in rather than opt-out, meta-mentor, meta-sourcery, meta-ro-rootfs, and meta-tracing are maintained by Mentor Graphics at this time. :)</div>
</div>-- <br>Christopher Larson<br>clarson at kergoth dot com<br>Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus<br>Maintainer - Tslib<br>Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
</div></div>