[PATCH 1/2] ti-sysbios: Add version 6.41.04.54.

[PATCH 1/2] ti-sysbios: Add version 6.41.04.54.

[Jacob Stiffler]

Signed-off-by: Jacob Stiffler <j-stiffler@ti.com>
---
 recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb |   12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb

diff --git a/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb b/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1e24fe1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+require ti-sysbios.inc
+
+PV = "6_41_04_54"
+PR = "r0"
+
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://bios_${PV}_manifest.html;md5=95c3c6050fb23f2755ab75bf76805190"
+
+SRC_URI[sysbiosbin.md5sum] = "cbc53f2b15c2f70e2eaa05c1ed90b8db"
+SRC_URI[sysbiosbin.sha256sum] = "2b4fcb85af4c0abc46dadc925312b2a28906ec34db9b1500f0c484ee3fcb58cf"
+
+TI_BIN_UNPK_CMDS=""
+TI_BIN_UNPK_ARGS = "--mode unattended --prefix ${WORKDIR}"
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH 2/2] ti-sysbios: Remove version 6.41.02.41

[Jacob Stiffler]

* This has been superseded by 6.41.04.54

Signed-off-by: Jacob Stiffler <j-stiffler@ti.com>
---
 recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.02.41.bb |   12 ------------
 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.02.41.bb

diff --git a/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.02.41.bb b/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.02.41.bb
deleted file mode 100644
index ccc6ad1..0000000
--- a/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.02.41.bb
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
-require ti-sysbios.inc
-
-PV = "6_41_02_41"
-PR = "r1"
-
-LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://bios_${PV}_manifest.html;md5=a4af75ec6d586c5267c71075eebff418"
-
-SRC_URI[sysbiosbin.md5sum] = "65deff27110c2af87a3c71fea3c0345e"
-SRC_URI[sysbiosbin.sha256sum] = "2c47b4a3aa9513d10e5811a8ac7ed1d6ce3d13df57a0bffe10d8cabaf228c76f"
-
-TI_BIN_UNPK_CMDS=""
-TI_BIN_UNPK_ARGS = "--mode unattended --prefix ${WORKDIR}"
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ti-sysbios: Add version 6.41.04.54.

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

Same comment/question about version update - any specific reason for 2 
separate patches?


On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:29:14AM -0400, Jacob Stiffler wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Stiffler <j-stiffler@ti.com>
> ---
>  recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb |   12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
> 
> diff --git a/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb b/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..1e24fe1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> +require ti-sysbios.inc
> +
> +PV = "6_41_04_54"
> +PR = "r0"
> +
> +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://bios_${PV}_manifest.html;md5=95c3c6050fb23f2755ab75bf76805190"
> +
> +SRC_URI[sysbiosbin.md5sum] = "cbc53f2b15c2f70e2eaa05c1ed90b8db"
> +SRC_URI[sysbiosbin.sha256sum] = "2b4fcb85af4c0abc46dadc925312b2a28906ec34db9b1500f0c484ee3fcb58cf"
> +
> +TI_BIN_UNPK_CMDS=""
> +TI_BIN_UNPK_ARGS = "--mode unattended --prefix ${WORKDIR}"
> -- 
> 1.7.9.5
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> meta-ti mailing list
> meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ti-sysbios: Add version 6.41.04.54.

[Jacob Stiffler]

I had once received a comment that it should be done this way: 
http://patchwork.dal.design.ti.com/patch/12482/

Let me know if I should resubmit this and the cgt6x patches.

On 7/7/2015 4:59 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> Same comment/question about version update - any specific reason for 2
> separate patches?
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:29:14AM -0400, Jacob Stiffler wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Jacob Stiffler <j-stiffler@ti.com>
>> ---
>>   recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb |   12 ++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
>>
>> diff --git a/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb b/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..1e24fe1
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
>> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
>> +require ti-sysbios.inc
>> +
>> +PV = "6_41_04_54"
>> +PR = "r0"
>> +
>> +LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://bios_${PV}_manifest.html;md5=95c3c6050fb23f2755ab75bf76805190"
>> +
>> +SRC_URI[sysbiosbin.md5sum] = "cbc53f2b15c2f70e2eaa05c1ed90b8db"
>> +SRC_URI[sysbiosbin.sha256sum] = "2b4fcb85af4c0abc46dadc925312b2a28906ec34db9b1500f0c484ee3fcb58cf"
>> +
>> +TI_BIN_UNPK_CMDS=""
>> +TI_BIN_UNPK_ARGS = "--mode unattended --prefix ${WORKDIR}"
>> -- 
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>> -- 
>> _______________________________________________
>> meta-ti mailing list
>> meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ti-sysbios: Add version 6.41.04.54.

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

Jake,

I think that was one of the long standing confusion - back in OpenEmbedded 
Classic days removing old version wasn't safe, as it could break someone 
else's build. So, people were advised to add new version they wanted, but send 
a separate patch that deleted the old one. If there was someone who used that 
specific old version, they could object to the second patch. That's why there 
used to be multiple versions of the same recipes all over the place. Now, with 
OpenEmbedded Core and the Yocto Project, the normal policy is to keep a single 
version of each recipe, where possible. Hence, updating recipe version is 
better done in a single patch, as it allows tracking recipe changes across 
versions with git log --follow flag. Other than that, I don't remember any 
other reason why would you want to do a version update in 2 separate patches. 
My position was always less strict - if you want 2 patches, then at least send 
them in right order, plus using -C --find-copies-harder flags would help with 
review, as it wouldn't look like 100% new file...

-- 
Denys


On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 06:51:57AM -0400, Jacob Stiffler wrote:
> I had once received a comment that it should be done this way:
> http://patchwork.dal.design.ti.com/patch/12482/
> 
> Let me know if I should resubmit this and the cgt6x patches.
> 
> On 7/7/2015 4:59 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >Same comment/question about version update - any specific reason for 2
> >separate patches?
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:29:14AM -0400, Jacob Stiffler wrote:
> >>Signed-off-by: Jacob Stiffler <j-stiffler@ti.com>
> >>---
> >>  recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb |   12 ++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100644 recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
> >>
> >>diff --git a/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb b/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
> >>new file mode 100644
> >>index 0000000..1e24fe1
> >>--- /dev/null
> >>+++ b/recipes-ti/bios/ti-sysbios_6.41.04.54.bb
> >>@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> >>+require ti-sysbios.inc
> >>+
> >>+PV = "6_41_04_54"
> >>+PR = "r0"
> >>+
> >>+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://bios_${PV}_manifest.html;md5=95c3c6050fb23f2755ab75bf76805190"
> >>+
> >>+SRC_URI[sysbiosbin.md5sum] = "cbc53f2b15c2f70e2eaa05c1ed90b8db"
> >>+SRC_URI[sysbiosbin.sha256sum] = "2b4fcb85af4c0abc46dadc925312b2a28906ec34db9b1500f0c484ee3fcb58cf"
> >>+
> >>+TI_BIN_UNPK_CMDS=""
> >>+TI_BIN_UNPK_ARGS = "--mode unattended --prefix ${WORKDIR}"
> >>-- 
> >>1.7.9.5
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>meta-ti mailing list
> >>meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
> >>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ti-sysbios: Add version 6.41.04.54.

[Jacob Stiffler]

Denys,

Were these not in the correct order? Add new version first, then remove 
the old version, correct?

Do you want me to resubmit these patch sets??

- Jake

On 7/9/2015 7:21 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> Jake,
>
> I think that was one of the long standing confusion - back in OpenEmbedded
> Classic days removing old version wasn't safe, as it could break someone
> else's build. So, people were advised to add new version they wanted, but send
> a separate patch that deleted the old one. If there was someone who used that
> specific old version, they could object to the second patch. That's why there
> used to be multiple versions of the same recipes all over the place. Now, with
> OpenEmbedded Core and the Yocto Project, the normal policy is to keep a single
> version of each recipe, where possible. Hence, updating recipe version is
> better done in a single patch, as it allows tracking recipe changes across
> versions with git log --follow flag. Other than that, I don't remember any
> other reason why would you want to do a version update in 2 separate patches.
> My position was always less strict - if you want 2 patches, then at least send
> them in right order, plus using -C --find-copies-harder flags would help with
> review, as it wouldn't look like 100% new file...
>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ti-sysbios: Add version 6.41.04.54.

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

Jake,

Let me try to simplify... In order to efficiently review patches, I need to 
see the changes between the versions. There are 2 ways to do that:

1. Rename recipe to the new name (git-mv) and make the necessary changes. Then 
git-format-patch a single patch which will only have the actual changes.
This is a preferred way to do version upgrades if you don't need to keep old 
version around and maintain multple versions of the same recipe/component.

2. If you want, you can still do it in 2 patches - add new and remove old one. 
BUT, you should git-format-patch the first one with -C --find-copies-harder 
flags, so it would make the patch with new version *as a diff* against the old 
one, not a completely new one.

Since you already have this version upgrade as 2 commits, you don't need to 
rebase and squash them, just git-format-patch again with correct flags and 
resubmit. Thanks.

-- 
Denys


On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:16:28AM -0400, Jacob Stiffler wrote:
> Denys,
> 
> Were these not in the correct order? Add new version first, then
> remove the old version, correct?
> 
> Do you want me to resubmit these patch sets??
> 
> - Jake
> 
> On 7/9/2015 7:21 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >Jake,
> >
> >I think that was one of the long standing confusion - back in OpenEmbedded
> >Classic days removing old version wasn't safe, as it could break someone
> >else's build. So, people were advised to add new version they wanted, but send
> >a separate patch that deleted the old one. If there was someone who used that
> >specific old version, they could object to the second patch. That's why there
> >used to be multiple versions of the same recipes all over the place. Now, with
> >OpenEmbedded Core and the Yocto Project, the normal policy is to keep a single
> >version of each recipe, where possible. Hence, updating recipe version is
> >better done in a single patch, as it allows tracking recipe changes across
> >versions with git log --follow flag. Other than that, I don't remember any
> >other reason why would you want to do a version update in 2 separate patches.
> >My position was always less strict - if you want 2 patches, then at least send
> >them in right order, plus using -C --find-copies-harder flags would help with
> >review, as it wouldn't look like 100% new file...
> >
>