On 02/12/2015 10:54, "openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org on behalf of Barros Pena, Belen" <openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org on behalf of belen.barros.p...@intel.com> wrote:
> > >On 02/12/2015 08:17, "openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org on >behalf of Martin Jansa" <openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org >on behalf of martin.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:01:40PM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote: >>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:47:20 Martin Jansa wrote: >>> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 07:49:50AM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote: >>> > > Hi Trevor, >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:19:35 Trevor Woerner wrote: >>> > > > On 11/26/15 16:00, Paul Eggleton wrote: >>> > > > > I'm also >>> > > > > trying to ensure that the patch validation is generic enough so >>>it can >>> > > > > live in OE-Core, and thus we can easily update and refine it >>>over time >>> > > > > in >>> > > > > line with the code itself as well as encourage submitters to >>>use the >>> > > > > script on their own changes before sending. >>> > > > >>> > > > This all sounds like an improvement and is therefore a step in >>>the right >>> > > > direction :-) >>> > > > >>> > > > A while back I had the idea of "porting" the kernel's >>>"checkpatch.pl" to >>> > > > The Yocto Project (it was around the same time that I was trying >>>to >>> > > > float the whole "Maintainers File" idea too, since I was also >>>trying to >>> > > > re-purpose "get-maintainer.pl" as well). About one minute into >>>that >>> > > > effort I realized the existing *.bb files were all over the place >>>in >>> > > > terms of the order of statements and the order of the blocks of >>> > > > statements. At that time I found one recipe style guide from OE, >>>and >>> > > > another one from The Yocto Project, each of which described a >>>slightly >>> > > > different preference. So I asked on the mailing list and quickly >>> > > > discovered that both groups prefer a different style. >>> > > > >>> > > > I'm not saying this job isn't worth doing, but I am pointing out >>>there's >>> > > > the potential for feathers to be ruffled on both sides if someone >>>tries >>> > > > to produce a definitive style guide for recipe files and then >>>enforces >>> > > > it in an automated way. Since it is the OpenEmbedded Project's >>>job to >>> > > > provide the recipes for The Yocto Project, I'm guessing this >>>question >>> > > > needs to be decided by them? If that sounds reasonable, then >>>maybe The >>> > > > Yocto Project needs to acquiesce to OE's decision? >>> > > >>> > > I don't think there's that much of a division. I don't recall if it >>>was >>> > > you >>> > > that raised it at the time but the issue of having two style guides >>>did >>> > > get >>> > > rectified - I changed the one on the Yocto Project wiki to simply >>>be a >>> > > link to the OE style guide in June last year. It certainly didn't >>>come >>> > > about through a conscious decision to have a different style. >>> > > >>> > > However there is a minor disagreement over indentation for shell >>>functions >>> > > between OE-Core and other layers - this persists because of the >>> > > backporting >>> > > pain a blanket replacement would potentially lead to. As I recall >>>this did >>> > > get discussed at the OE TSC level. I think that's one thing we >>>could just >>> > > not evaluate (or make an option) until such time as we resolve the >>> > > difference - and I do mean to see it resolved at some point in the >>> > > future. >>> > >>> > Using consistent indentation (4 spaces) at least for new metadata >>>would >>> > be step in right direction. >>> > >>> > With the amount of changes which are backported to older releases I >>> > still don't see this "backporting pain" argument. Doing it just >>>before >>> > the release is of course useful, because e.g. now more changes will >>>be >>> > backported to Jethro than to Fido or Dizzy. So having consistent >>> > indentation in Jethro and master would prevent 95% of "backporting >>> > pain". Maybe some Yocto 10.0 will finally get the meaning of >>> > "consistent" indentation. >>> >>> I agree it's not ideal. I said above, I do want to see it resolved. >>> >>> Leaving indentation aside for a moment do you have any comments on my >>> proposal? >> >>I'm not familiar with FDO fork, so I don't know how it looks and >>behaves, > >This is how it looks like currently > >http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/intel-gfx/patches/ > >> but any improvement on patchwork side is definitely welcome and >>I appreciate it. >> >>Does it support e.g. moving the patches to given bundle based on some >>substring in subject? To sort e.g. meta-networking, meta-java, >>meta-browser, .. patches automatically? > >Mmm, you might not like this, but we are thinking of getting rid of >bundles. Basically, we assumed bundles were a manual way of creating patch >series. The new Patchwork can identify series, so we thought: great! >Bundles no longer needed. > >There are other features been considered that might be an alternative to >bundles, like tagging sorry: pressed 'send' too soon :/ As I was saying, tagging https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/issues/36 Or supporting several projects within the same mailing list (in your case, one per layer) https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/issues/77 > > >> >>I don't expect FDO fork to provide other features I'm used to from >>gerrit like cherry-picking to selected branch from the UI or doing the >>review there. But still if we're stuck with patchwork forever (because >>some people hate gerrit), then any improvement is really appreciated, >>thanks for looking into it. >> >>My only concern is about migrating current database, do you know if the >>migration will keep the database I don't know, but I can find out. >>including bundles If we remove the bundles, then I guess the migration might not keep the bundles. Belén >>as they are or do you >>plan to set FDO version in parallel at least for some transition period? >>Currently I have many patches in flight, because jenkins is running full >>test-dependencies job for last 11 and based on progress it will take >>14-21 more days to finish. >> >>Regards, >> >>-- >>Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com > >-- >_______________________________________________ >Openembedded-core mailing list >Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core