On 02/09/2012 07:31 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Thursday 09 February 2012 15:51:11 Koen Kooi wrote:
The status ought to be correct with regard to the patch author's
assessment of whether or not the patch can go upstream.
That's where I disagree, it's called 'Upstream-status', not
'Perceived-upstream-status'. The field should reflect the status from an
upstream perspective, not from the OE perspective. So both 'Pending' and
'Inappropriate' boil down to 'Not submitted' currently. Maybe I'm
overthinking all this :)
Well unless I'm mistaken, the purpose of the field for which it was originally
introduced is as I stated it, to track where we (layer maintainers) are in
sending things upstream since the expectation is that we will be the ones
doing the work required to do that. Whether or not the label(s) that get used
accurately communicate that is another matter.
Paul is correct here, a number of people made various proposals for what
to put into this field from the perspective of the maintainers. This was
then documented by Mark Hatle and reviewed in the TSC at somepoint. It
is posted at:
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
There is never a good set of words because everyone can translate then
differently. I think everyone is doing there best. For the existing set
of Pending, we are working to get those upstream, they would then be
marked Submitted, after that we can get more accurate response from the
upstream and mark the patch as such. I think that the Submitted step is
getting missed and we go from Pending -> updated upstream status.
Once we get through the "Pending" batch we can revisit the remaining 800
or so patches.
We are working on it, every little step makes things better.
Sau!
Cheers,
Paul
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
