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 1KBDMK-00033Z-FF for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:35:16 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KBDKO-0004uc-Jl for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:33:16 +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 ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:33:16 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:33:16 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:33:06 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1213345201.13942.3.camel@dax.rpnet.com> <20080624095735.GB3500@aquilonia.hyboria> 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/2008061003) In-Reply-To: <20080624095735.GB3500@aquilonia.hyboria> 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: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:35:16 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Graeme Gregory wrote: >> 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. >> > I have been thinking on this and here is my suggestion. > > One thing that has been noted has been the high level of work required > to review every change to every package. > > Every time more than two OE people get together we keep talking about > splitting OE into two. Maybe it is time to consider actually doing it. > My suggestion would be along the rough lines of the following. > > 1) OE-core - everything needed to get upto a successful glibc build > completed so gcc, gcc-cross, binutils and support packages. Also most > stuff in classes/. Breakages in these two areas are what hurts the most > and the area we have the least manpower in. I'd expand that area to the stuff task-boot covers (init, udev, busybox, etc), and maybe even packages/linux. > > In this section we would have proper reviews and I would suggest no > change without two OE-core developers signing off on it. (OE-core > developers being possible a different group than the political OE core). > > 2) OE-universe - all the other stuff, the recipes and distro configs. > The stuff where breakage tends to be less painful we keep as is. With > people not being afraid to got git-revert on stupid changes. Yes you do > need to test building all users of a .inc file or patch when you change > them. > > If we find this system is working and we think we can handle the extra > load we can always start to raise the bar. For example we could change > core to 3 signoffs and universe to 2. But I think a little of this > trying a new SCM will be seeing how peoples workflow changes. I know > from OM git usage I was suddenly spending less time on complex merges > and had more time to think. > > Anyway thats my 2p. > > Graeme