From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from esa1.hc324-48.eu.iphmx.com (esa1.hc324-48.eu.iphmx.com [207.54.68.119]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.37308.1599469101883724437 for ; Mon, 07 Sep 2020 01:58:23 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="signature has expired" header.i=@bmw.de header.s=mailing1 header.b=Ki2T2ziB; spf=pass (domain: bmw.de, ip: 207.54.68.119, mailfrom: prvs=512b25981=mikko.rapeli@bmw.de) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bmw.de; i=@bmw.de; q=dns/txt; s=mailing1; t=1599469101; x=1631005101; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=4aVdcivc2/hxKaaEeVatTML/wQbeiMl9qdHSypje4bM=; b=Ki2T2ziBTcCIxs90RXl0ZyIEv5g6BepaD+wykd+D9h+L5FjwI9ecuy+E 4Im0VUkaa/yXe7HjuOW7viVwnfUKqXcpFpWyoPw2PvV83PxTJJ2mPM94c gAdvbdVHMFF/Gd8KdCqay3KAnH0jyZI1MFxpRvbZwqquMKrsEpSxIZWRF 0=; Received: from esagw6.bmwgroup.com (HELO esagw6.muc) ([160.46.252.49]) by esa1.hc324-48.eu.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS; 07 Sep 2020 10:58:19 +0200 Received: from esabb6.muc ([160.50.100.50]) by esagw6.muc with ESMTP/TLS; 07 Sep 2020 10:58:19 +0200 Received: from smucm10m.bmwgroup.net (HELO smucm10m.europe.bmw.corp) ([160.48.96.49]) by esabb6.muc with ESMTP/TLS; 07 Sep 2020 10:58:19 +0200 Received: from smucm10k.europe.bmw.corp (160.48.96.47) by smucm10m.europe.bmw.corp (160.48.96.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:58:19 +0200 Received: from smucm10k.europe.bmw.corp ([160.48.96.47]) by smucm10k.europe.bmw.corp ([160.48.96.47]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:58:19 +0200 From: "Mikko Rapeli" To: CC: Subject: Re: [bitbake-devel] an idea about parallel doing do_patch Thread-Topic: [bitbake-devel] an idea about parallel doing do_patch Thread-Index: AQHWhPDDDlg+C63ht0yrqWgAHJOICKlcuL+AgAABzICAAAQYAA== Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 08:58:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20200907085816.GO2026@korppu> References: <20200907083711.GL2026@korppu> <20610.1599468217725892636@lists.openembedded.org> In-Reply-To: <20610.1599468217725892636@lists.openembedded.org> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <2CC664E8B6FF934FA33B88164AB7BD68@bmwmail.corp> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, please reply to mailing list too. On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 01:43:37AM -0700, zhangyifan46@huawei.com wrote: > Sure using git repo is best solution. > But I am working in a company=A0 and we use local codes(tar + patches). > right or wrong, I think if we can improve the efficiency of patching, it = is better than nothing. Well, here I would really move away from tar + patches approach and move th= ings to git. I've been there and forced BSP vendors to provide full git trees with prope= r commit messages and history linked to upstream kernel.org stable point releases. We have th= ese in our project and product requirements. I suggest talking to the vendors a= nd moving to git. Tar and patches was ok in the 90's but not anymore large change sets. Parallelizing do_patch() could be a nice addition but needs serious testing and validation because bugs could have really serious effects. Cheers, -Mikko=