Re: [PATCH 2/2] recipes: Update recipes to get 'bitbake world' parse and calculate runqueue successfully.

[Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>]

On 08/28/2010 10:39 AM, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Philip Balister<philip@balister.org>wrote:
>
>> On 08/28/2010 07:51 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>
>>> 2010/8/28 Koen Kooi<k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Your patch does too many things at once, to recipes I maintain, so
>>>> please split it up per recipe and I'll ack/nack the seperate patches.
>>>> I'm getting suck of such jumbo patches that can't be reverted cleanly.
>>>> I'm still dealing with the fallout from the crappy deletions frans did,
>>>> so patches like this aren't helping.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ehm, I did not see a request to revert any of the deletions.
>>> There have been two issues (openssl and docbook-sgml-dtd, and both
>>> have been reverted in 16 hrs or so. (and later on one or two other
>>> deletions have been reverted on request of the recipe owners, but
>>> these did not cause any breakage afaik).
>>> So I really don't know what fallout you are dealing with.
>>> And my deletions were not exactly jumbo patches and were very easy to
>>> revert if needed.
>>>
>>> And as I already wrote before: dev head is bleeding edge, so sometimes
>>> things go wrong. Can happen. No big deal if resolved quickly. That is
>>> the risk of living on the edge. If you can't live with that use the
>>> stable branch or create your own branch where you are in full control.
>>> The root cause is that you do what can be considered production work
>>> on dev head. Most seasoned software engineers will agree that that is
>>> not very wise and
>>>
>>> BTW apparently your perception on my work apparently is a minority
>>> viewpoint. If I recall correctly two people complained to me and at
>>> least 5 mentioned to me that they appreciated my activity.
>>>
>>
>> Add my voice to the "minority". You've been pushing some large patches that
>> work for you, but may not for others. There is always work in progress in
>> .dev, so all recipes may not meet your standards.
>
>
> *Every* patch that gets proposed is a patch that "works for you, but may not
> for others".  You simply can't test every combination for every change you
> make, it's not possible.  As long as these sorts of patches go the list for
> review, as they now seem to be, I don't see the problem.

Yes, but 99% of patches are small enough that they are easily fixable as 
problems come up, and the impact is limited.

I'd also question the wisdom of doing changes with broad impact during 
July/August. It seems like a large number of people are on extended 
vacations during this time period.

Philip