From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.dream-property.net ([82.149.226.172]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RTdvr-0007Kq-T5 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:21:59 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.dream-property.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8133156105 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:15:28 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.dream-property.net Received: from mail.dream-property.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.dream-property.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Qq7pS0Y2mvbT for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:15:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.22.22.61] (drms-4d0150b5.pool.mediaWays.net [77.1.80.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.dream-property.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C3D931560CD for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:15:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4ECE89B8.8060002@opendreambox.org> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:15:20 +0100 From: Andreas Oberritter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111031 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <1322134409.3391.21.camel@mattotaupa> <1341768.l3QXe5jHAh@helios> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Plans for OE classic future 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: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:22:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 24.11.2011 18:47, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 24-11-11 12:43, Paul Eggleton schreef: >> On Thursday 24 November 2011 12:33:29 Paul Menzel wrote: >>> You seem to use OE-core and meta-oe already so I understand your point >>> of view. Martin, Koen, Andreas and you are doing the major work for >>> meta-oe and not a lot of other people contribute. >>> >>> In my opinion it is a bad sign to force people to switch. OE-core and >>> meta-oe should be so appealing that they switch by themselves. My >>> impression from reading the list and from IRC is that a lot of people >>> still have objections and are not totally comfortable. Good community >>> management would be to listen to these people then try to find >>> solutions and implement them. People then should come by themselves. > >> Let's not get carried away. In the current discussion it seems the main >> objection to switching from several people is that they are in the middle >> or close to the end of their development cycle on products that depend on >> OE- classic; it's totally understandable that those people can't switch >> at this time. I'm not entirely convinced those people can't use the >> 2011.3 maintenance branch for those purposes however. > > Most, if not all people objecting to OE-classic closing seem to be on > 2011.03-maintenance already. The confusion seems to be rooted into not > paying attention when Tom said fixes for the maintenance branch can go > through oe-core/meta-oe/whatever as well. That is even mentioned in the damn > wiki for the maintenance branch! Ah, of course. Just tell everybody to switch to oe-core, so they can backport fixes from there to 2011.03. Sure. That's what everybody who isn't able to switch to oe-core for some reason will do. Mentioning your "damn" wiki again and again doesn't help anybody. Regards, Andreas