1.16 stable series

1.16 stable series

[Richard Purdie]

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!

Cheers,

Richard

Re: 1.16 stable series

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

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?

-M

Re: 1.16 stable series

[Richard Purdie]

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