From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K7A5d-00041l-Fh for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:17:18 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1K7A5R-0004Bv-Bs for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:17:05 +0000 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:17:05 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:17:05 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1213345201.13942.3.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <74d0deb30806130306tf5ca604t7238ab26d715e03@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a2pre (Macintosh/2008060303) In-Reply-To: Sender: news Subject: Re: Switching SCM to git and commit/review policy X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.10 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:17:25 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cliff Brake wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:06 AM, pHilipp Zabel wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> As always, there is a but. This change is conditional on being able to >>> come up with a sensible commit and review policy for OE.dev. The core >>> team does feel that the metadata quality has dropped over time in some >>> areas and we need to have a better review process. The change to an SCM >>> with good branch support is a vital part of this but not the only part. >>> >>> We've not made any decisions on what the commit/review policy should be, >>> this is open for discussion. We're thinking it may take the form of some >>> kind of kernel style Signed-off-by: tags and a switch to a partially >>> pull based model rather than just push based as we use monotone so more >>> than one developer handles any given change. >> Personally, I'd like to see every patch to OE being sent to and >> reviewed on the mailing list. >> About a pull based model, wouldn't we need something like the kernels' >> subsystem maintainers to share the load? Seeing that there already >> seems to be a serious manpower problem, who would have the time to do >> that? > > One of the differences with the OE meta data is that its structure is > rather flat instead of a nice hierarchy like the kernel. Another > problem is an update in one of the core components can often have > unforeseen consequences in other packages. So I don't think there is > any substitute for a lot of testing. A lot of the work to keep it all > going is simply busy-work -- updating URI's, adding new versions of > packages, etc, so I would hate to slow that down. How about coming up > with a list of directories/files that need mail list review: > > - classes > - conf/bitbake.conf > - conf/distro > - packages/images > - packages/tasks > - packages/linux/linux.inc > - packages/glibc/ > .... > > Perhaps with everything else (machines, random packages), it would be > strongly advised that you get sign-off from the maintainer of that > recipe if listed. This would help encourage the maintainers to stay > involved. That won't work, since people will 'accidentally' misread the list to avoid review.