> > > >> Missing Upstream-Status: Backport. > > > > Sorry. Ok, I will add in. > > I'm now a bit confused. Which upstream status I should be using Backport or > Accepted? > > Read in www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines > > > > Now I felt sound like the accepted should be using. > > Backport also correct as well, I really backport the fixed from upstream > master into this fixed version. > > I don't think your choice here matters, the important thing is that a future > maintainer upgrading this recipe can see that this patch might/should be > included in a future release: either choice works for that. FWIW, I think > "accepted" is the next step from "submitted": a status update for a yocto/oe > patch that was also sent to upstream mailing list or issue tracker. "backport" > on the other hand is a commit already in upstream that was then backported > to yocto/oe.
Thank you for clarify. Now I think much clear what upstream status I should be using. > > > Is this information status needed like below: > > > > Upstream-Status: Accepted > > - The code fixed already accepted in upstream, and expected to be in next > release. > > - Currently backport this code fixed from upstream into 1.6.0 fixed version. > > - Bugzilla status for this issue is closed fixed. > > - Expected version info? Can I put wait for next release or totally skip > > first? > > (Because I'm really sure what is next release version in > > libva-intel-driver. It could be 1.6.1 or 1.7.0. This really depends on > > next release from libva-intel-driver.) > > If you know the version number the commit is (or will be) in, please include > the version number. If the code is not committed upstream yet and you have > a bug URL, please include the URL. Ok. Thanks. ...siewhoon -- _______________________________________________ meta-intel mailing list meta-intel@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel