Re: Splitting meta-oe?

[Joe MacDonald <Joe_MacDonald@mentor.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3351 bytes --]

[Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 17.02.17 (Fri 19:02) Martin Jansa wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:24:09PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> > > The recent storm of breakage in meta-oe caused by recipe specific sysroots
> > > was quite dramatic:
> > >
> > > ross@flashheart ~/Yocto/meta-oe ((044e518...))
> > > $ git grep PNBLACKLIST| wc -l
> > > 320
> > >
> > > Is it time to talk about splitting meta-oe into smaller real repositories
> > > so they can be maintained at their own pace by more maintainers?
> > >
> > > Ross
> > What exactly gets better by splitting?
> 
> I agree with Andreas.

And I agree with both of you.

> 1) RSS is good thing.
> 
> 2) The breakage wasn't caused by lack of maintainers (at least I don't
>    think that I or Joe were the bottleneck for integrating the fixes).

My schedule is highly variable but I do try to be responsive to
breakages and I do my best to watch and digest the state of the world
messages, those are extremely valuable IMO.

> 3) More maintainers doesn't mean more contributions from people actually
>    using now broken components, it's actually easier to just send a fix
>    than to be a maintainer of some layer just to be able to also merge
>    your fix yourself.
> 
> 4) It doesn't look so dramatic if it turns out that 200 of those
>    blacklisted recipes weren't actually used by anyone still active in
>    OE ecosystem.

Agreed.  And if those blacklisted recipes are something that someone
in the ecosystem cares about, they really should be sending fixes back
upstream.  Breaking meta-oe up into smaller parts doesn't seem likely to
make them more likely to send patches, AFAICT.  Probably won't make them
less-so, either, but I don't see changing the structure to be a
significant win.

And do note that when we first created meta-networking I was proposing
it be separate from meta-oe, I'm now completely on the other side of
that argument, for what that's worth.

> 5) If someone wants to replace me as meta-oe maintainer, go ahead, it
>    stopped being fun for me long time ago, now it's just slightly annoying
>    routine which takes my free time I would rather invest in something
>    cooler

I frankly think that'd be a loss for everyone, but it's understandable.
That's a big, largely thankless job you've taken on.  Obviously I can't
offer to take on more of the job than I already have with
meta-networking or I would, but maybe someone else with a similarly "big
picture" view will be able to share some of the workload.

-J.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> > Splitting = Rotting to death due to unmanageable maintenance burden
> > caused by oe? Don't misunderstand me recipe specific sysroot is
> > basically a good thing. But I am tired of this game. As you can see in
> > meta-qt5-extra: I am interested in having cool images not in a cool
> > build system. Long live core-image-sato!
> > 
> > Andreas
> > -- 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openembedded-devel mailing list
> > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> 
> -- 
> Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com



-- 
-Joe MacDonald.
:wq

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 484 bytes --]