From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from starfish.geekisp.com (starfish.geekisp.com [216.168.135.166]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A05E01304 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 07:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 695 invoked by uid 1003); 31 Mar 2012 14:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.106?) (philip@opensdr.com@71.171.25.206) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 31 Mar 2012 14:27:49 -0000 Message-ID: <4F771465.7030708@balister.org> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:27:49 -0400 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Mills References: <20120319205854.GE19810@bill-the-cat> <20120319210247.GD15554@denix.org> <20120319210557.GF19810@bill-the-cat> <788A3D57-ACFD-4CA0-820F-0DD91DCB8196@dominion.thruhere.net> <4F7630F0.8010408@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7630F0.8010408@ti.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Cc: Tom Rini , meta-ti@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: release branch for meta-ti? X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:27:51 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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