Re: Last minute changes - Review Request

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

Add a +1 to reviewed, worried, but accepting column.  They each seem reasonable, 
low-enough risk..

--Mark

On 10/22/10 12:23 PM, Saul G. Wold wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 09:32 AM, Stewart, David C wrote:
>>> From: yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-
>>> bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Richard Purdie
>>> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:24 AM
>>>
>>> Coming up to release there are a few things that the extended testing
>>> has shown up which we have fixes for and which we should consider
>>> including in the release. I also finally got around to doing the final
>>> sstate stress testing and found several problematic issues. Given that
>>> sstate and checksums are a significant feature of this release, I'd
>>> really like them to work as well as we can make them. Prior to this I
>>> had stress tested the backend up not the use of the packages. These
>>> changes don't change any sstate packages themselves, just the use of
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Since we already have the release images prepared and tested and these
>>> are not going to change, the criteria for potential changes:
>>>
>>> a) We can unit test the changes and be confident they don't
>>>     break/regress things.
>
> For the Future: Besides doing a basic build, we need to have some real
> unit tests for bitbake and the poky infrastructure, I guess I need to
> turn this into a Testing feature request for 1.0 (look for it soon).
>
>>> b) They fix important bugs that the user can easily run into
>>>     or that make the project look bad.
> After reviewing the changes I agree, don't get me wrong, I am still very
> nervous about these changes.
>
>>> c) The changes are small, well documented and are obviously correct
>>>     looking at the code/patch.
> Some times we over look the obvious changes, been caught by that myself
> too many time.
>
>>> d) The don't change the generated images.
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> I'm not happy about being in this position and I know Dave will be very
>>> nervous about these late changes. To mitigate this I'd like to propose
>>> that a selection of people (Josh, Mark, Saul?) review these changes and
>>> report back on whether they feel these are appropriate and also give the
>>> build some testing with these applied.
>>
>> I'm so predictable... :-) Yes, I'm nervous. I looked at all of the patches and with the exception of one or two, they mostly seem like good ones. I will accept these if Josh/Mark/Saul give us a +1 on their review&   testing.
>>
>
> If there was 1 or 2 changes, I would be much happier, but there are
> almost a dozen changes, yes mostly individually they are OK, I am still
> reviewing them all, and have not started any testing with them yet.
>
> I agree with Dave that there are a couple that I am more nervous about
> the pseudo/fakeroot as we have had so much trouble in the past, yes I
> know this will make things better, but what else will crop up?
>
>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yocto mailing list
>>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>> https://lists.pokylinux.org/listinfo/yocto
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto mailing list
>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.pokylinux.org/listinfo/yocto
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.pokylinux.org/listinfo/yocto