Re: edison/denzil patches (post-1.1.2 and 1.2.1)

[Joshua Lock <josh@linux.intel.com>]

On 16/07/12 08:10, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Joshua Lock <josh@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 12/07/12 10:43, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
>>>
>>> Josh, Scott:
>>>
>>> I've pushed a set of patches for edison/denzil branch - and I may push
>>> a few more still to:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=mattsm/edison
>>>
>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=mattsm/denzil
>>>
>>> These are all cherry-pick's and most applied cleanly and a few had
>>> some minor cleanups. Please consider these for after the point
>>> releases. I will continue to push to these branches and rebase these
>>> branches off the official upstream trees as well.
>>
>>
>> I don't know how much work will be done on Edison after the 1.1.2 release. I
>> personally will no longer be working on it and I don't think the team here
>> as enough resources to maintain it perpetually.
>
> OK.
>
>> I assume that these changes are predominantly to further improve PPC
>> support?
>
> Yes.
>
>> In general your branch has several types of changes that have generally been
>> considered inappropriate for a point release (such as recipe upgrades, new
>> functionality, etc).
>
> I see very little of this, the valgrind series and/or the a few other
> image generation bits.

Indeed, that's likely the sum of it but the changes in isolation don't 
offer any context as to why they're required for PPC so my gut reaction 
is to reject them as they violate the suggested guidelines for stable 
releases.

>> Personally I'm not very keen on the idea of pushing them all and advocating
>> their inclusion. I'd strongly encourage adoption of this release series if
>> it's to continue to be relevant to your work.
>
> So is poky edison dead now? How do I support folks that still want to
> use it? I understand that *you* may not have time but is there a
> process for someone that cares about this release still to do work? If
> a fork is required is there a way to point folks at this fork? Such as
> if you want this to work use this other version?

I certainly can't see why one would need to fork.

I would like to see Edison live on, which is why I sent an email 
suggesting it be adopted, *I* just don't have time to work on it any more.

I'm sure Saul and/or David can help work out a process, as I don't have 
a clear understanding of it (I am but one cog in the engine). I can't 
imagine why it would be hugely different from the way it's been 
maintained thus far.

Much of that work you've already been doing with the branch you have 
submitted.

In addition there are a different set of requirements for just getting 
changes into the branch vs. having some kind of release which includes 
those changes.

The latter would require QA, build/release engineering, release 
readiness, etc.

Thanks,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
         Yocto Project
         Intel Open Source Technology Centre