On Nov 26, 2011 11:02 PM, "Paul Menzel" <paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 26.11.2011, 14:36 -0700 schrieb Tom Rini: > > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > > > 2011/11/26 Tom Rini > > > > > >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > > >> > On 2011-11-25 23:04, Tom Rini wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >>> After all, isn't one of the purposes of OE to promote information > > >> >>> sharing, > > >> >>> cooperation and the use of openembedded technology (and not make things > > >> >>> harder). > > >> >> > > >> >> One of the points of making master read-only would be to ensure that > > >> >> changes aren't lost. > > >> >> > > >> >> Perhaps the transition needs to be: > > >> >> - master is as it is today > > >> >> - master becomes oe-core backport || master-only bugfixes only > > >> >> - master becomes read only. > > >> >> > > >> >> And we go from the first step to the second step sometime sooner > > >> >> rather than later. The top of my head date would be before the > > >> >> paid-developers go on end of year breaks to try and make sure all the > > >> >> hobbyist folks start their hacking with oe-core+etc rather than master > > >> >> and risk getting caught later. I'm open to arguments on why that's > > >> >> exactly backwards... > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > Won't it be a problem for existing projects, if you cannot add fixes to > > >> cope > > >> > with new host OS versions. > > >> > > > >> > At the moment, openembedded-classic does not build properly with Ubuntu > > >> > 11.10 . > > >> > > >> Won't what be a problem? Either oe-core+meta-oe+etc fails on 11.10 > > >> (so, fix it there first then backport changes) or it's fine and you > > >> can either find the relevant changes there and move them or it's a > > >> oe.dev-only bug and just needs to be fixed, under my proposal (until > > >> we reach the point where everyone is OK calling it r/o). > > >> > > >> And part of this is to say that yes, existing projects external to > > >> oe.dev need to move to oe-core(+meta-oe+whatever else) (where layers > > >> should be making their life easier or again, there's problems we're > > >> unaware of and need to be made aware of) or explain why they can't > > >> ever move (and are forking the project?). > > > > > > See the message on NIOS that I just posted. > > > > Addressed there :) > > > > > Also I am not opposed to making oe classic master the place where patches > > > may land before they end up in the maintenance thread, but I am strongly > > > opposed to making OE classic read only on short notice (which as suggested > > > by Koen earlier). > > > > I believe master needs to go read-only, or at least > > backport||master-only-problems bugfix only, sooner rather than later. > > > > The arguments seem to be: > > - Some people or projects use master and can't move > > * So don't move, but do expect to need to either migrate to > > 2011.03-maintenance or carry more fixes locally. > > This is still not understandable. I understand that you want developers > to move to OE-core and meta-oe. But trying to force people by making > master read-only is the wrong way. It just arbitrarily puts a burden on > current users. You can advertise prominently that OE-core and meta-oe > should be used. Over the time people will move and a lot of people have > expressed their willingness to move in the future. >
Choosing now the baseline for dm3730 with my colleagues it seems that it will be arago, that is still oe-classic, because Ti is releasing dvsdk based on it. If Ti moves with arago to oe-core we move as well to it. Very clean and simple decision, isn't it? > > With my > > 2011.03-maintenance hat on, if someone says for my project to move I > > need N patches moved from master to maintenance, I'm fine reviewing > > that pull request. > > I thought that was always possible in the past. > > > - There's concern that $something won't be able to work with oe-core+meta-oe+etc > > * These are problems that either need to be fixed or assumptions that > > aren't correct. > > > > - Lack of recipes in meta-oe > > * The recipes people need have been moved, stuff that isn't can be > > when someone needs it. id3lib was mentioned as an example of why > > there might be problems getting things moved to meta-oe. I can't help > > but notice it's also been moved into meta-oe. > > As Bernhard noted in this reply. OE-Core and meta-oe seriously lack > documentation. And if it is just that our Wiki currently is still based > on OE-classic. And in my experience not a lot of people put effort > behind it and just neglect it. > > (New users will search for tutorials and help on the WWW and there > currently a lot is dealing with OE-classic.) > > > Thanks, > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel