From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [130.89.2.9] (helo=smtp.utwente.nl) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J5Jko-00073e-5W for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:39:54 +0100 Received: from Powerbook-2.local (vpn006011.vpn.utwente.nl [130.89.6.11]) by smtp.utwente.nl (8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id lBKBYgfr014717 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:34:42 +0100 Message-ID: <476A5353.7040301@student.utwente.nl> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:34:43 +0100 From: Koen Kooi User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org References: <476A26BB.1010602@student.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 X-UTwente-MailScanner-Information: Scanned by MailScanner. Contact helpdesk@ITBE.utwente.nl for more information. X-UTwente-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UTwente-MailScanner-From: k.kooi@student.utwente.nl X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: RFC: drop quilt version 0.39 X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:39:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rolf Leggewie schreef: > Koen Kooi schrieb: >>> driven by bug 1960, I have been doing some work on quilt in OE, > >> What are your good reasons to drop it? I see no point in removing stuff >> just to boost someones commit stats under the moniker "clean up" > > * had you bothered to look at the referenced bug you would have realized > that it was not really me proposing to drop it initially. That is still no reason to drop it. > * why keep old stuff (AKA cruft) longer than necessary? Just so koen > can bully fellow contributors? So vendor can keep using it without having check IRC every 5 minutes to say "No, we still need it". To keep the work needed when merging branches down to a minumum. To do regression testing. To do statistical analysis on packages. > * patches that apply fine to 0.45 and 0.46 don't apply cleanly to 0.39. > This somehow gets into the way of how I reworked it. FILES_PATH and FILES_DIR both have ${PN}-${PV} overrides, so this is still no reason to drop it. > IMHO that suffices to drop it unless there is good reason to keep it. > If there are, please state them. You're under the impression we actively delete 'old' stuff in OE, which we don't, since we have vendors using the OE tree that aren't on IRC and don't check this mailinglist regulary. > And as you all know, OE is versioned > so if anybody were to want it back anytime in the future mtn would > gladly spew out the last known 0.39 version, I am sure. This attitude is exactly why vendors have difficulty with OE. Again, you must have good reasons for removing it, not have no reasons to keep it. And even if you have good reasons, you have to put it in removal.txt first, with at least a month notice. If the 1/4000th impact on parsing bothers you, we also have packages/obsolete/. This all applies to OE in general as well, so your recent deletion of atk will probably need reverting as well. - -- koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl will go go away in december 2007, please use k.kooi@student.utwente.nl instead. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFHalNTMkyGM64RGpERAiOyAKChC3aPIZZgEHO6PFLZTFPfbQw51wCdGLxD Wzy5YcN0ttqe/UET4xrS/kc= =ZSLV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----