From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TULdH-0003Y7-6q for bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 19:06:15 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA2HqUVK026028; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:52:30 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 25868-02; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:52:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA2HqKpr026022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:52:22 GMT Message-ID: <1351878740.6502.78.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: McClintock Matthew-B29882 Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:52:20 +0000 In-Reply-To: <70CC66F5C30A414DADDA6973E4CA391A74834D@039-SN1MPN1-001.039d.mgd.msft.net> References: <1351750475.6502.11.camel@ted> <70CC66F5C30A414DADDA6973E4CA391A74834D@039-SN1MPN1-001.039d.mgd.msft.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: bitbake-devel , Scott Garman Subject: Re: 1.16 stable series X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:06:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 22:08 +0000, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Richard Purdie > 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