On 10-11-18 12:23 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
On 11/17/2010 09:13 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 10-11-17 8:29 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
On 11/17/2010 03:32 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
Folks,
After reviewing the emails from the first attempt and review bugzilla,
there are a couple of different approaches that can be taken. It's
important to note that bugzilla supports 3 layers, Classification,
Product and Components, version are tracked at the Product level.
Since we have 3 Layers, there are 2 possible scenarios:
This is the Yocto Projects Bugzilla, so each "project" can have it's
own classification, I am not sure that this is the best since some of
the projects are pretty flat the extra level does not make sense.
I am proposing the following top level classifications, containing the
following projects (products/components) :
Yocto Projects
...
- Kernel
- build
- configuration
- runtime
Acked-by: Darren Hart<dvh...@linux.intel.com>
- BSPs
- by board??
Let's start off simple - by board might not scale well. Just "BSP" would
be my vote - Bruce might have additional thoughts.
This is the sane thing to do. One category 'bsp'. We can specify
the BSP in the subject of the bug. If a bug appears across a
class of BSPs or an arch, it gets bumped to kernel runtime and
is dealt with there.
We've been using this scheme for about 200 supported BSPs, so it
should do just fine here as well.
OK, so should we 'demote' bsp to component or leave it a 'product'
level with 1 general component, just trying make sure we have flexibility.
Keep the flexibility. That way if a particular BSP is maintained
differently, we have the ability to assign bugs to it and keep
them out of a global BSP queue.
At least that's my opinion :)
Bruce
Sau!
Cheers,
Bruce
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
