From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685B46069C for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:16:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v03GGkfR027853; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:16:46 GMT Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3S8LFhIfsf5Q; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:16:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hex ([192.168.3.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v03GGhPo027835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:16:44 GMT Message-ID: <1483460203.4367.60.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: "Jolley, Stephen K" , "yocto@yoctoproject.org" , "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 16:16:43 +0000 In-Reply-To: <9ADD3FDE8B189B4AA2F8A3C711F8155E5732C512@fmsmsx111.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <9ADD3FDE8B189B4AA2F8A3C711F8155E5732C512@fmsmsx111.amr.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Yocto Project Status WW01 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 16:16:52 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 15:51 +0000, Jolley, Stephen K wrote: > Current Dev Position: YP 2.3 M2 -> M3 > Next Deadline: YP 2.3 M2 by Jan 23, 2017 >   > SWAT team rotation: Maxin -> Joshua > https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Build_Failure_Swat_Team >   > Key Status/Updates: > ·        M1 is having some QA difficulties due to some kind of bad > interaction between the PR service and tinfoil2. We’re waiting until > people are back from vacation and up to speed before we decide what > to do about this. One question which came up was whether just to cherry-pick fixes for M1 into a branch, or whether we use master. For me personally master is tempting but its probably safer just to use an M1 branch as master has moved on a fair bit. I wanted to give people an opportunity to express opinions either way. Cheers, Richard From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 7A1C5E006D8; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 08:16:55 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5B2E00405 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 08:16:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v03GGkfR027853; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:16:46 GMT Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3S8LFhIfsf5Q; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:16:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hex ([192.168.3.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v03GGhPo027835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:16:44 GMT Message-ID: <1483460203.4367.60.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: "Jolley, Stephen K" , "yocto@yoctoproject.org" , "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 16:16:43 +0000 In-Reply-To: <9ADD3FDE8B189B4AA2F8A3C711F8155E5732C512@fmsmsx111.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <9ADD3FDE8B189B4AA2F8A3C711F8155E5732C512@fmsmsx111.amr.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project Status WW01 X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 16:16:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 15:51 +0000, Jolley, Stephen K wrote: > Current Dev Position: YP 2.3 M2 -> M3 > Next Deadline: YP 2.3 M2 by Jan 23, 2017 >   > SWAT team rotation: Maxin -> Joshua > https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Build_Failure_Swat_Team >   > Key Status/Updates: > ·        M1 is having some QA difficulties due to some kind of bad > interaction between the PR service and tinfoil2. We’re waiting until > people are back from vacation and up to speed before we decide what > to do about this. One question which came up was whether just to cherry-pick fixes for M1 into a branch, or whether we use master. For me personally master is tempting but its probably safer just to use an M1 branch as master has moved on a fair bit. I wanted to give people an opportunity to express opinions either way. Cheers, Richard