Re: [PATCH 0/1] A script to clean obsolete sstate cache files

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 13:56 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 13:53, Paul Eggleton
> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Except here we are talking about a single patch that adds a single file, which
> > is easily downloadable from the web interface. If it were more complicated I
> > could understand the fuss, but right now this is almost ridiculous.
> 
> It doesn't seem that easy; it seems Koen tried to apply it and it has failed.
> 
> Besides, Robert didn't complain about people asking it to be resend.
> Who is complaining is Richard and I am just justifying the reasoning
> why it is more the logical to expect it to be done based on OE-Core.

In this case, Richard is presenting the viewpoint he's heard expressed
by a number of people in private but who don't want to rock the boat on
the mailing list. I'd like to see the mailing list be a friendly place
where people don't get flamed for posting patches. Some of the recent
responses are less than friendly and I think its reasonable to try and
resolve this.

I'm going to propose that if trees are poky based, the pull request
should indicate this. People can then act accordingly. No indication
means its oe-core derived.

Cheers,

Richard