release branch for meta-ti?

release branch for meta-ti?

[Koen Kooi]

Hi,

Any volunteers for maintaining a releasebranch that matches the upcoming oe-core release in ~4 weeks?

regards,

Koen

Re: release branch for meta-ti?

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 360 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Any volunteers for maintaining a releasebranch that matches the upcoming oe-core release in ~4 weeks?

If Denys or Chase don't step-up, I'll do it.  As qualification, I do
such a thing for oe-classic currently :)  But if either of them would
rather, I'll defer to them.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]

Re: release branch for meta-ti?

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Any volunteers for maintaining a releasebranch that matches the upcoming oe-core release in ~4 weeks?
> 
> If Denys or Chase don't step-up, I'll do it.  As qualification, I do
> such a thing for oe-classic currently :)  But if either of them would
> rather, I'll defer to them.

We'll probably need to set meta-oe-maintenance up anyway for meta-arago to 
work with, rather than chasing changes in the master...

BTW, Tom, when are we planning to kill 2011.03 in oe-classic? It's 1 year old 
now...

-- 
Denys

Re: release branch for meta-ti?

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 969 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Any volunteers for maintaining a releasebranch that matches the upcoming oe-core release in ~4 weeks?
> > 
> > If Denys or Chase don't step-up, I'll do it.  As qualification, I do
> > such a thing for oe-classic currently :)  But if either of them would
> > rather, I'll defer to them.
> 
> We'll probably need to set meta-oe-maintenance up anyway for meta-arago to 
> work with, rather than chasing changes in the master...

Yes, meta-oe will also need a maintenance release to match, and
meta-arago too :)

> BTW, Tom, when are we planning to kill 2011.03 in oe-classic? It's 1 year old 
> now...

So long as there's interest has been my statement.  Given I was given a
pull request last week, there's still interest :)

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]

Re: release branch for meta-ti?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 19 mrt. 2012, om 22:05 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Any volunteers for maintaining a releasebranch that matches the upcoming oe-core release in ~4 weeks?
>>> 
>>> If Denys or Chase don't step-up, I'll do it.  As qualification, I do
>>> such a thing for oe-classic currently :)  But if either of them would
>>> rather, I'll defer to them.
>> 
>> We'll probably need to set meta-oe-maintenance up anyway for meta-arago to 
>> work with, rather than chasing changes in the master...
> 
> Yes, meta-oe will also need a maintenance release to match,

Working on that already :) That should hopefully avoid the usual arago forks or everything and the kitchensink.

regards,

Koen

Re: release branch for meta-ti?

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:13:48PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
> Op 19 mrt. 2012, om 22:05 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Any volunteers for maintaining a releasebranch that matches the upcoming oe-core release in ~4 weeks?
> >>> 
> >>> If Denys or Chase don't step-up, I'll do it.  As qualification, I do
> >>> such a thing for oe-classic currently :)  But if either of them would
> >>> rather, I'll defer to them.
> >> 
> >> We'll probably need to set meta-oe-maintenance up anyway for meta-arago to 
> >> work with, rather than chasing changes in the master...
> > 
> > Yes, meta-oe will also need a maintenance release to match,
> 
> Working on that already :) That should hopefully avoid the usual arago forks 
> or everything and the kitchensink.

Something's wrong with the above statement... :)

Is it "meta-oe maintenance should hopefully avoid the usual arago forks...", 
which is kind of backwards and doesn't make much sense to me :)

Or is it "meta-oe maintenance should help avoid the usual arago forks...", 
which I hope is what you wanted to say... :)

BTW, it's not like we like forks or encourage people to fork, but that's how 
people are used to work. I'm having hard time convincing people otherwise - 
i.e. track mainline or a stable branch and submit your changes back as 
patches. Chase is the only one who took this advise to heart and it's been 
pleasure to work with him supporting AM-SDK since then! :)

-- 
Denys

Re: release branch for meta-ti?

[Koen Kooi]

Op 19 mrt. 2012, om 14:05 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Any volunteers for maintaining a releasebranch that matches the upcoming oe-core release in ~4 weeks?
>>> 
>>> If Denys or Chase don't step-up, I'll do it.  As qualification, I do
>>> such a thing for oe-classic currently :)  But if either of them would
>>> rather, I'll defer to them.
>> 
>> We'll probably need to set meta-oe-maintenance up anyway for meta-arago to 
>> work with, rather than chasing changes in the master...
> 
> Yes, meta-oe will also need a maintenance release to match

meta-oe branch is really close to having a maintainer, what's the (final) word on the meta-ti branch?

regards,

Koen

Re: release branch for meta-ti?

[William Mills]

On 03/30/2012 06:09 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 19 mrt. 2012, om 14:05 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Any volunteers for maintaining a releasebranch that matches the upcoming oe-core release in ~4 weeks?
>>>>
>>>> If Denys or Chase don't step-up, I'll do it.  As qualification, I do
>>>> such a thing for oe-classic currently :)  But if either of them would
>>>> rather, I'll defer to them.
>>>
>>> We'll probably need to set meta-oe-maintenance up anyway for meta-arago to
>>> work with, rather than chasing changes in the master...
>>
>> Yes, meta-oe will also need a maintenance release to match
>
> meta-oe branch is really close to having a maintainer, what's the (final) word on the meta-ti branch?

I have no objection to the branch to ensure the current working 
functionality remains working with yocto maintenance releases.

However, I don't think we should actively maintain new features on both 
branches.

So what is the goal of the branch?

Re: release branch for meta-ti?

[Philip Balister]

On 03/30/2012 06:17 PM, William Mills wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 06:09 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>
>> Op 19 mrt. 2012, om 14:05 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any volunteers for maintaining a releasebranch that matches the
>>>>>> upcoming oe-core release in ~4 weeks?
>>>>>
>>>>> If Denys or Chase don't step-up, I'll do it.  As qualification, I do
>>>>> such a thing for oe-classic currently :)  But if either of them would
>>>>> rather, I'll defer to them.
>>>>
>>>> We'll probably need to set meta-oe-maintenance up anyway for
>>>> meta-arago to
>>>> work with, rather than chasing changes in the master...
>>>
>>> Yes, meta-oe will also need a maintenance release to match
>>
>> meta-oe branch is really close to having a maintainer, what's the
>> (final) word on the meta-ti branch?
> 
> I have no objection to the branch to ensure the current working
> functionality remains working with yocto maintenance releases.
> 
> However, I don't think we should actively maintain new features on both
> branches.
> 
> So what is the goal of the branch?

People that ship OE based stuff to customers hate basing stuff that goes
to customers based on layers that are under active development. We are
much happier with layers that are getting fixes for existing problems only.

Philip

Re: release branch for meta-ti?

[Richard Purdie]

On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 10:27 -0400, Philip Balister wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 06:17 PM, William Mills wrote:
> > On 03/30/2012 06:09 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>
> >> Op 19 mrt. 2012, om 14:05 heeft Tom Rini het volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:58:36PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any volunteers for maintaining a releasebranch that matches the
> >>>>>> upcoming oe-core release in ~4 weeks?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If Denys or Chase don't step-up, I'll do it.  As qualification, I do
> >>>>> such a thing for oe-classic currently :)  But if either of them would
> >>>>> rather, I'll defer to them.
> >>>>
> >>>> We'll probably need to set meta-oe-maintenance up anyway for
> >>>> meta-arago to
> >>>> work with, rather than chasing changes in the master...
> >>>
> >>> Yes, meta-oe will also need a maintenance release to match
> >>
> >> meta-oe branch is really close to having a maintainer, what's the
> >> (final) word on the meta-ti branch?
> > 
> > I have no objection to the branch to ensure the current working
> > functionality remains working with yocto maintenance releases.
> > 
> > However, I don't think we should actively maintain new features on both
> > branches.
> > 
> > So what is the goal of the branch?
> 
> People that ship OE based stuff to customers hate basing stuff that goes
> to customers based on layers that are under active development. We are
> much happier with layers that are getting fixes for existing problems only.

I'd echo this. Whilst its nice for developers to just keep iterating on
continual development, it doesn't actually work for users and having
some kind of release/stable branch helps a lot.

This is why the Yocto Project is having releases and those releases are
being maintained with point releases containing fixes. We don't add new
features in the release branches.

I'd strongly encourage this model to various layers. I appreciate its
not the way OE has worked in the past and it takes a bit of work to
change developer mindset on this though.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: release branch for meta-ti?

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 04:38:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 10:27 -0400, Philip Balister wrote:
> > On 03/30/2012 06:17 PM, William Mills wrote:
> > > On 03/30/2012 06:09 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > > I have no objection to the branch to ensure the current working
> > > functionality remains working with yocto maintenance releases.
> > > 
> > > However, I don't think we should actively maintain new features on both
> > > branches.
> > > 
> > > So what is the goal of the branch?
> > 
> > People that ship OE based stuff to customers hate basing stuff that goes
> > to customers based on layers that are under active development. We are
> > much happier with layers that are getting fixes for existing problems only.
> 
> I'd echo this. Whilst its nice for developers to just keep iterating on
> continual development, it doesn't actually work for users and having
> some kind of release/stable branch helps a lot.
> 
> This is why the Yocto Project is having releases and those releases are
> being maintained with point releases containing fixes. We don't add new
> features in the release branches.
> 
> I'd strongly encourage this model to various layers. I appreciate its
> not the way OE has worked in the past and it takes a bit of work to
> change developer mindset on this though.

All,

We had few opportunities to further discuss this matter at the Yocto BSP 
Summit and the Yocto Day at the Linux Collab during last week...

The outcome was that we'd like to recommend for all the layers (including 
meta-ti :) ) to apply the same tag at the same time of the Yocto release and, 
if needed, create the corresponding maintenance branch. The current release 
schedule of the Yocto Project is (roughly) every 6 month around April and 
October. We still need to decide on the exact naming convention for those tags 
and branches, which I hope will be discussed and finalized at the yocto 
mailing list in time for the release in the coming weeks.

-- 
Denys