Hi Jens, On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 07:03:51PM +0100, Jens Rehsack wrote: > Hi, > > to avoid such a problem as it occurred with ec7b984f, 04d5d0bf and dfb21b44, > I strongly suggest that meta-java follows the merge-workflow from other > meta-layers: > > cherry-pick new stuff into master-next, when settled - merge to master
Agree with this suggestion. Current state of meta-java isn't that great mostly because of the absence of a Continuous Integration process. I have briefly tried to incorporate automated testing for meta-java layer in github using travic CI. However, it is not yet completed due to space limitation and timeout problems in Travis CI. Hoping to fix that soon. https://github.com/maxinbjohn/meta-java/blob/master/.travis.yml > Branch releases as other layers do and same, push back-ported patches into > ${rel_branch}-next and merge the behaving ones into ${rel_branch}. > > The current way - pushing to master and live only there result in the > happened revert - and to continue my work I would have to revert the reverts > without any nice word in the commit message as I did in reverting 24b98ac3 > with a88718b6. > > Cheers > Jens Rehsack - rehs...@gmail.com Best Regards, Maxin -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
