From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from hermes.mlbassoc.com ([64.234.241.98] helo=mail.chez-thomas.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmnFZ-0008Bv-7J for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:32:43 +0200 Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 999) id 0427D1660A06; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:32:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from hermes.chez-thomas.org (hermes_local [192.168.1.101]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A8F1660A0D; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:31:30 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4C6FC722.9060002@mlbassoc.com> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:31:30 -0600 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.234.241.98 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gary@mlbassoc.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: OE stable, testing, dev (was Re: What to do about the poor bitbake Quality Control?) X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:32:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/21/2010 12:26 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > 2010/8/18 Cliff Brake: >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Martyn Welch wrote: >>> On 17/08/10 16:02, Cliff Brake wrote: >>>> >>>> I think it would be very useful to have a "stable" branch that is only >>>> synchronised with dev when X number of targets build from a clean >>>> build. It seems like this would be high value, with little effort. >>>> Of course there will be corner things that break, but at least a new >>>> beagleboard user can check out something and have reasonable >>>> confidence that it will build images. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have suggestions for the branch name and a reasonable >>>> subset of machines and build targets? Perhaps someone is already >>>> running these clean builds? At one point we had a machine at OSUOSL >>>> dedicated to this purpose, but no one ever set it up. >>>> >>> >>> So something like Debian's stable, testing and unstable[1]? >> >> That sounds good to me -- so how about org.openembedded.dev and >> org.openembedded.testing branches? > > Good plan! > >> >> I'll plan to start doing a clean build of dev every Monday for the >> Beagleboard, and then merge to testing once it builds. Initial >> targets: > > Cool! >> >> Angstrom Distro >> beagleboard/beagleboard-linuxtag2010-demo-image >> x86/minimal-image > > It would be nice to have some additional distro's (e.g. minimal, shr) > and machines (what would be a good coverage here) tested before it is > pushed >> >> My workstation runs a 64-bit OS, so that is probably worst case >> (compared to i686). >> > What OS? If you want to make things really nasty go to RHEL4 (but I > think most people would be fine with e.g. ubuntu 10.04) > Ideally you'd do this in a clean vm to make sure that there is no > dependency on whatever happens to be installed on your workstation for > other purposes. Perhaps share this load? I'd volunteer to make some tests using my Fedora servers. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------