From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f53.google.com (mail-it0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873697889F for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 03:50:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f53.google.com with SMTP id z143-v6so3885630itc.0 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 20:50:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2Wsa1L2JjixihMWmc23pHDsu2di9aWuq6GPHFx8fJb8=; b=rHbq/eiWYMqrJhehWi92b0aUHGh0Y65CxJNIvcIUG+CKOLKjtS/zc90YoSf5KqwmXO jHwiXwdPzcYpeDJtNhkvIclzW8cTcYmPinG7cDaBjRuCUAUCxeIitLGh3qF37p+KDHMk jvu2iPPuCE1O0vPHTrlGn3bkcU2j3UyQKqGtQjq4+MXM3L00Tq/QlWIO1yh/Jft8djAo T7gPIyrgenZ1P78J3OsYMiTveBbkiYVlPYcdNYbAtWtQlmV7sawVhugkirG2pCxXogtO vGRqUxCO8JyCrj1FV8ZRIZMuVoIaj7vz/dnzk93ST5Dng30s2K8+tYpzgJIb+KdK3pYT Yd/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2Wsa1L2JjixihMWmc23pHDsu2di9aWuq6GPHFx8fJb8=; b=Z82RZeFL1I4WGNXcxA3WZVUg10J3NyVEnbxKd++qHi6D3ReaH2k45ZTz0wHDQgqlP5 qlYY3tufB6vo3vzWtM01dc+7wtbTVmLO8K5xuTIjpucKbJ+wsBUbg/k7/lACEIczhKSd 5cup94YWIj4HW51T2ogWZkymh8rrv8++ovP2LomLHymowjU2BmbAHfyBsUNB6boErFH5 cz9k5pZWowONBt1SAieQa6Aj9YpLHMO9QgFr53D2n4qdSiZ65OH21J2W+rMlIzYH3yV7 tjuf0b9VU3TF1kYExKtIo6mU8rYMx3lHfNoq9ows/YK6MEn8uBh4Ewh3AlkdxntYiGeM 1Fcw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FMhQAaJtqq/20eFOXH8wlgJaxlPUdO8mUXj9faG0ysZTEyiZm0 7WQqA78FmKYKgI2yXqnqm7z4qXe8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuDbe6uQFAsThoFwIMYxPOA14KvyALhAJUg1adjnCrNNUVT/Wvkd2cMiAWwE8B36vqBuvFAHw== X-Received: by 2002:a24:98d6:: with SMTP id n205-v6mr4628607itd.130.1521258625136; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 20:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux-uys3 ([206.248.190.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 193-v6sm5467923itf.1.2018.03.16.20.50.22 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Mar 2018 20:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 23:50:21 -0400 From: Trevor Woerner To: OpenEmbedded Devel List Message-ID: <20180317035021.GA19189@linux-uys3> References: <1519148811.24236.321.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <1519152750.24236.330.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <1fad6cab-f195-1dca-3b10-ebefe0e44fe3@gmail.com> <1519163708.24236.337.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <1519170075.24236.345.camel@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1519170075.24236.345.camel@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Subject: Re: Splitting meta-oe? X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 03:50:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline On Tue 2018-02-20 @ 11:41:15 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > The separate layers and maintainership is the way we designed the new > layered approach to OE to scale. I only became an active user of OE after the OE-classic split; I had used it a couple times during the OE-classic era, but not very deeply. Therefore: my apologies for not having a fuller understanding of the issue(s). Would anyone like to make an honest, unbiased attempt at answering: 1. What problem(s) was the post-OE-classic split attempting to solve? 2. Did it work? Can it be said that the problem(s) the OE-split was attempting to solve, have actually been solved by the split? (and, if new problems arose as a result of this split, were they small an manageable relative to the pre-split problems?) The experiment to decide whether we need more splits or consolidation has already been done. Have the results been sufficiently understood?