From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFEE732B1 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 18:16:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgv5 with SMTP id 5so109860966wgv.1 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 11:16:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:date:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=cWERB16M/UTbZoaMkYPz4bjK/tbPlpI/VgLuzFwhTtY=; b=SmbFYIe1bYAMOF/PE1z1OvUV+lsoJMVPV66bLUHmJ7Fmwh22Ch0p/gFnCw5B/bonR3 y70KHQ2euulCQM/AksDvZJMfm+G/U/yT6/t5qq2Efhj8eJbPDMGe5+mlveX1x7ZjmR9T nA2zxJ97fVDdxFOd2z0pe/VK5dfqqSKHtBDeQf0k5Mm4lvhvGqsKeQGVLk3Eq1bm7tUP XBFiauDavjS06LKJD81RpKctAy/ar1t37zlFArnRHcXidOBCVj/1gktK5djpiQE59FAX oU6Jtbewk1fxQK2goHjW/yqEtbN2G9+nea++n3ArtrswS/Nj518Iz+PqRiEEdQ2puZVx UM2Q== X-Received: by 10.194.57.211 with SMTP id k19mr34767687wjq.53.1433787382163; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 11:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-86-49-34-37.net.upcbroadband.cz. [86.49.34.37]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a8sm2255822wic.22.2015.06.08.11.16.21 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jun 2015 11:16:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Jansa X-Google-Original-From: Martin Jansa Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 20:16:26 +0200 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-ID: <20150608181626.GF2384@jama> References: <1433782597-24380-1-git-send-email-raj.khem@gmail.com> <20150608170503.GD2384@jama> <20150608172456.GE2384@jama> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [meta-qt5][PATCH 1/2] qtbase: Fix build with musl X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 18:16:23 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 01:58:03PM -0400, Khem Raj wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Martin Jansa wro= te: > > If it's too much to ask, I'll just update b5.4* branches in > > https://github.com/meta-qt5/qtbase myself before applying this patch, > > but basically when I'm upgrading to newer version, I usually want to use > > git to just rebase the patches for newer revision (or completely new > > branch like now when upgrading from 5.4 to 5.5 and having up2data > > patches in qtbase git repository is very useful, when I'm done I just > > git format-patch them to refresh .patch files in meta-qt5. > > > > For new meta-qt5 patches it's simple, I can just use git am to add them > > in meta-qt5/qtbase, for refreshing patches I need to be more careful not > > to forget to do this, before I do next version/revision upgrade. >=20 > essentially, you have created forks of qt repos from upstream. Are you > also syncing them on regular bases ? Yes, but I sync them only when I want to introduce new revision/version in meta-qt5 or when I'm adding new patch sent to this ML or update of patch (if I don't forget to do it after testing it in jenkins build). > So we never rebase/refresh the patches but do incremental patches > unless you decide to squash them ? I always do rebase, but I don't expect other contributors to do it unless they're sending patch upgrading revisions/versions used in .bb files. Incremental patches are always welcome even for issues like this one, because it's easier for me to "git am" + "git rebase -i" to squash them into correct patch and refresh with git format-patch. > I am fine with this workflow. I have something similar in mind for > other components.It will help us push component > patches upstream as well. I am doing something similar for toolchain > components on my own but in the end generating > patches for public consumption. Yes, it's sometimes a bit annoying churn in .patch files, but having simple git branch with all our changes in good format for pushing them upstream is IMHO worth it. That's why I always prefer rebase over merge, because I want to resolve conflicts once and then have the patch ready for upstreaming. --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com