Re: 1.16 stable series

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

On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 22:08 +0000, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > One of the issues with previous OE-Core and Poky releases has been
> > deciding which bitbake should be used used with them. There is a copy of
> > bitbake in poky denzil which is a now becoming a bit of a Frankenstein,
> > not corresponding to any particular bitbake release with various random
> > patches from master. This isn't necessarily a bad thing and users of
> > poky find it useful but I think we can do better.
> >
> > This time around, for the danny series I made sure we had a bitbake
> > stable branch available to correspond with it (1.16). I'm planning to
> > use the 1.16 branch as a stable bitbake branch and directly include that
> > in poky-danny verbatim. So far I don't think there have been any
> > invasive changes on master so I might just push current master into the
> > 1.16 branch. As development moves forward, we'd move to a model of
> > picking specific commits that make sense for the branch.
> >
> > I really just wanted to let people know what I was intending here, I
> > doubt its too controversial and if people have specific things they want
> > to see in the stable branch, feel free to point them out!
> 
> For denzil then should we apply straight to poky? Or should we try to
> create something for denzil as well? Does one of the branches already
> serve this purpose?

I'll probably just continue applying things to denzil at this point. We
probably could create a branch that corresponds to it but its not
something I feel is a priority right now...

Cheers,

Richard