From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtpfb2-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.10]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UODHH-0002Va-Cd for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:30:28 +0200 Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr (smtp3-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.3]) by smtpfb2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815F6D1AA61 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:13:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from e6520eb (tal33-3-82-233-81-124.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.81.124]) (Authenticated sender: eukrea) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3A6DA6217; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:13:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:13:05 +0200 From: Eric =?UTF-8?B?QsOpbmFyZA==?= To: clarson@kergoth.com Message-ID: <20130405221305.6a7ae319@e6520eb> In-Reply-To: References: <1363859339-12187-1-git-send-email-ross.burton@intel.com> <20130321140745.4a0683c8@e6520eb> Organization: =?UTF-8?B?RXVrcsOpYQ==?= Electromatique X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.13; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][for-danny] guile: remove from meta-oe, there is newer version in oe-core 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, 05 Apr 2013 20:30:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Christopher, Le Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:02:22 -0700, Chris Larson a =C3=A9crit : > I'm a bit confused about why this went in. danny is a stable branch, and > this is clearly not a bugfix. Did the existence of this recipe actually > cause a problem? This just caused a temporary build break for us due to > bbappending to a removed recipe. What exactly is the policy for meta-oe's > danny branch, if it's not "bugfixes only"? I usually apply patches to danny-next and wait at least one week to get feedback before pushing to danny (and usually I try to do that on a friday). So if you want to prevent this kind of problem for the future, you may be able to configure one of your autobuilders to build your projects using danny-next's branch so that you get the error before the patches are pushed to danny. Best regards, Eric