Re: Autobuilder bugs versus stable branch being updated

[Junqian Gordon Xu <xjqian@gmail.com>]

On 02/17/2009 03:55 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 08:54:46PM +0100, Bernhard Guillon wrote:
>> Rolf Leggewie wrote:
>>> Philip,
>>>
>>> thank you for your comment.
>>>
>>> Philip Balister wrote:
>>>> I think it is a but of stretch to close old autobuilder bugs with the 
>>>> comment the stable branch will not be updated.
>>> That should not be the case (unless of course they were both of type  
>>> .stable and -autobuild).
>>>
>> We should create a new stable branch. The old one drifted too much away  
>> from .dev which makes it hard to backport things from .dev to stable.
> 
> The problem really is a policy one.  The old stable was "angstrom
> snapped for 2007 here".  That's one way to do a stable branch, but not
> what everyone thinks when they read "stable".  How much would it hurt to
> have OE actually do releases, rather than to be, in kernel terms, mostly
> like Andrew's tree (once stuff seems to work for some people, pull it
> in, see what breaks)?

+1 for releases instead of snap short, which was proven not working for 
the users.

> 
> And of course, who would volunteer to actually try and maintain such
> things and get everyone using the various branches that would have to
> entail, correctly?
> 

I can maintain the user space stuffs and communicate/bug core members 
for stuff that I do not understand. In terms of machines, I will keep an 
eye on tosa and spitz. I've been away for a while since the git 
conversion (now half-way through the git manual), but I always try to 
keep up with the mailing lists.

Regards
Gordon