From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id AF14CE0099A; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:16:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, high * trust * [192.94.94.40 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com (arroyo.ext.ti.com [192.94.94.40]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524D2E00985 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dflxv15.itg.ti.com ([128.247.5.124]) by arroyo.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id t6SFGT58009175 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:16:29 -0500 Received: from DFLE72.ent.ti.com (dfle72.ent.ti.com [128.247.5.109]) by dflxv15.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t6SFGT50032579 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:16:29 -0500 Received: from dflp33.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.16) by DFLE72.ent.ti.com (128.247.5.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:16:28 -0500 Received: from [10.218.109.201] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dflp33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t6SFGSMg021952; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:16:28 -0500 Message-ID: <55B79CCC.70604@ti.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:16:28 -0400 From: Jacob Stiffler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Denys Dmytriyenko References: <1436272155-9491-1-git-send-email-j-stiffler@ti.com> <20150707205920.GH11382@edge> <559D00CD.5010606@ti.com> <20150709232111.GJ15657@edge> In-Reply-To: <20150709232111.GJ15657@edge> Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ti-sysbios: Add version 6.41.04.54. X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:16:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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... >