Got it. I see your rational and I now understand why you proposed a bbclass. I'll use this bbclass method and send out V3.
Regards, Qi -----Original Message----- From: Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 7:33 PM To: Chen, Qi <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; MacLeod, Randy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OE-core][PATCH V2 1/4] recipeutils: add optional stable_upgrade parameter to get_recipe_upgrade_status On Thu, 7 May 2026 at 08:20, <[email protected]> wrote: > If it's not set, we give > it a reasonable default value, which means if a version consists of at > least three parts, the bump in last one is considered as a stable > upgrade. I strongly disagree and think we should be a lot more careful. This default will result in a lot of point version updates where the LTS maintainer would have to go and check whether the updates include new features or not. Yoann already had to reject a bunch of such updates, produced in a similar way with custom AUH tweaks. Rather this should be enabled on a case by case basis for components that are known to do stable maintenance (a good indicator is presence of stable branches with a major.minor version in branch name somewhere), by setting UPSTREAM_STABLE_RELEASE_REGEX for them (perhaps via class inherit to avoid repetition). No explicitly set UPSTREAM_STABLE_RELEASE_REGEX means no stable updates exist, or the situation hasn't yet been checked. Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#236631): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/236631 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/119193131/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
