Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Graeme Gregory <dp@xora.org.uk>]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
>
>   
>> On Saturday 25 July 2009 14:15:08 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>   would it not make more sense to have even the "dev" branch come
>>> with the required version of bitbake embedded in the checkout?
>>> or, failing that, just toss that incomplete bitbake directory
>>> entirely?
>>>       
>> If you look into this directory it will only contain *.pyc files and
>> I don't think it makes any sense to put bitbake into the
>> OpenEmbedded repository.
>>     
>
>   in a sense, i agree with that.  the problem is that the precedent
> has already been set by having bitbake in the stable/2009 branch and,
> based on the principle of least surprise, you shouldn't suddenly yank
> something out of a branch if developers are used to seeing it there.
>
>   
Your standing on your head. Bitbake wasnt yanked out of anything. It was 
added to the stable branch in good engineering fashion as thats the 
version stable/2009 will always build with. Development moves with 
bitbake so it makes no sense to put it in.

Graeme