From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from host4.kei.pl ([94.152.8.4] helo=smtp.host4.kei.pl) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PZ6mH-0003rg-0g for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:06:09 +0100 Received: (qmail 20888 invoked by uid 2404007); 1 Jan 2011 19:05:48 -0000 X-clamdmail: clamdmail 0.18a Received: from apn-77-112-174-6.dynamic.gprs.plus.pl (HELO ?77.112.174.6?) (marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl@77.112.174.6) by host4.kei.pl with ESMTPA; 1 Jan 2011 19:05:46 -0000 From: Marcin Juszkiewicz To: bitbake-dev X-Mailer: Modest 3.2 References: <1293763348.17519.11220.camel@rex> In-Reply-To: <1293763348.17519.11220.camel@rex> Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:05:49 +0100 Message-Id: <1293908749.2293.6.camel@n900> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel Subject: Re: [Bitbake-dev] Bitbake Architecture, Roadmap, Maintainers and the future X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:06:09 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-ID: <1293908749.2293.5.camel@n900> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There is a little friction around bitbake at the moment. I think after a > discussion I had with Chris earlier on some things are clearer and its > probably good to summarise how things stand. Thank You Richard for mail. > Rightly or wrongly, maintainership of a project like bitbake is as much > about socialising changes and getting discussion and agreement on them > as it is about developing code. It eats a lot of time, you don't get > much thanks for it but it does make life smoother in the long run. > I consider myself a maintainer of bitbake So do I - for me you are Bitbake maintainer. And I am fine with having Chris and you as maintainers. > So, bitbake in the future? At present it has bits on berlios (releases, > mailing list and a web manpage) and the git source SCM on > git.openembedded.org. Are we happy with those locations? I find it a bit > confusing... I think that we should replace berlios with redirects to OE infrastructure. Tarballs should be available for download for any 1.8.0+ releases (older ones should not be in use now and can be generated from cgit). Manual available as separate website. I prefer to not host it at Yocto. > There are a bunch of people who can commit to bitbake, some inactive, > some active in different areas with different priorities. I think mine > are clear above, I'd appreciate others to make their objectives clear so > everyone understand people's positions and what people plan and don't > plan to do. I still have r/w to bitbake svn, no idea about git tree. There is no need for it so please remove my write access. If there will be a need for it I will send patches + pull request to proper mailing list.