From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PJSDV-0007yz-Qm for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:45:38 +0100 Received: by fxm11 with SMTP id 11so2762566fxm.6 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:44:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=FhSJGgW46aCBt+ESys3LS2Wl4qC75mYpDd3a1d2JSms=; b=HCjqScMXio1ZhTIuWl2JdT47qG8nQvhZ2gmJrusNkwndBhtP0h8gtYyeYBMkFLlKv3 VL8tdsh2tbvWMKkCy9lw54mdmdcAE6/DQTokFg3hjIF5GgmQASpToqG6UOkf5BiJiZ7Y ZhbPykvj4p6uY1t7nR7zCEuk/F63/GKA3khUA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Lzg7gvYIIJN15mL9wz+EWjo3SurJTYGH6jN1akNduQXE5cYIYgbXTvQ+PJpT7ggWHE 0frFLep545OtdYA9M6FGXmbIcg8dR3UPtHkrMgZWdRpKUJTl1cGxCSdD2J02O8n8H+/l SnBLHebvuSPyuUeKRNthEOEENzCbDiaH/Y9j8= Received: by 10.223.86.194 with SMTP id t2mr938921fal.40.1290177865288; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:44:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (161-24.13.24.78.awnet.cz [78.24.13.161]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j14sm524473faa.23.2010.11.19.06.44.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:44:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:44:25 +0100 From: Martin Jansa To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20101119144425.GC3411@jama> References: <4CE67FA1.6020901@mentor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.161.47 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: martin.jansa@gmail.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: release-2010.12 branch ready for testing X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:45:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 03:16:02PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > Well, that was the whole point. The release is supposed to be only a > testing tag... > > We were very clear at OEDEM, no *branch* only a tag. If .dev isn't > working, find a testing tag in the past that does work and use that as a > release. > > It seems people are trying to polarize issues, when they shouldn't. So > no "freeze .dev", but "pay more attention to .dev" and no "release > branch" but "encourage getting more green into tinderbox". > > The idea was to get a release out and see how people are using it to > improve the process and test conditions, not making a kneejerk process > for this release. > > I've seen no discussion on this list why we need a branch or a freeze > instead of following the OEDEM plam, only people stating that we need > it. So what's wrong with the original plan of getting the release out > and using actual experience as feedback for future releases? Hi, I think that short-lived branch is better, because every testing branch had few easy-to-fix issues which were fixed almost immediately in .dev after testing branched and it would be hard to choose which branch was best. But tag from any testing branch + first few quick fixes would be almost as good as based on any other testing branch. And I also agree with Phil that this short lived branch should be removed when the tag is created (to show that it's final state without maintainance). Just my 2c. Regards, -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com