Re: [PATCH] Rename 'BRANCH' variable to 'SRC_BRANCH' for clearness

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

On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 23:03 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> The 'BRANCH' variable name has no explicit relation with the
> >>> SRC_URI. Using 'SRC_BRANCH' makes it more obvious and easier to
> >>> identify.
> >> 
> >> Look good to me, just may be avoid ‘_’ and call it SRCBRANCH
> > 
> > I did this initially but looking at how it looks in the source code,
> > it seems SRC_BRANCH makes easier to spot the relation with SRC_URI. So
> > I took the second.
> 
> since bitbake use ‘_’ as a override separator, its less confusing if variables don’t have underscore in them
> for future collision.

Names with '_' in them might look better but there is a small price to
pay for it in that bitbake then has to track whether "BRANCH" is an
override. Obviously it does this in many cases already (e.g. URI from
SRC_URI) but when you've looked at what the datastore actually has to do
to keep the system working, you start to lean against creating more work
for it.

I continue to believe we should probably find a better syntax for
overrides. If someone had a good alternative, it would probably be worth
the pain of switching...

I'm not saying we shouldn't take the above patch here, just that this is
something which does have a cost and all the uses do mount up
significantly.

Cheers,

Richard