From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155724C80054 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:24:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-mail03 [147.11.57.144]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9MHOhlk029680 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.57.147]) by ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:24:42 -0700 Received: from Macintosh-5.local ([172.25.34.19]) by ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:24:42 -0700 Message-ID: <4CC1C8D8.2090207@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:24:40 -0500 From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Thunderbird/3.1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yocto@yoctoproject.org References: <4CC1C88B.707@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4CC1C88B.707@linux.intel.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2010 17:24:43.0157 (UTC) FILETIME=[03F33450:01CB720E] Subject: Re: Last minute changes - Review Request X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:24:45 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. > > > >>> 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