Re: 2011.03 release testing, starts soon!

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09-02-11 11:42, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 11:18, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> On 09-02-11 10:56, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>>> 2. Do not delete the release branch after 2011.03 will be released (just like
>>>>    it was done for 2010.12), but let it live and allow developpers committing
>>>>    bug-fixes (backporting choosen things?) reported back by OE users (some would
>>>>    would be happy to contribute this way)
>>>
>>> That was already discussed. We make a tag with the release rev from which can be
>>> branched again _if_ people are stepping up to support this branch on a mid or
>>> long term base.
>>>
>>> The branch Tom is using until the release is pretty useless froma history point
>>> of view (all changes must be in master as well). When he thinks the release is
>>> good enough the tag gets added and the old branch deleted. For the last release
>>> nobody cared to support it afterwards with bugfixes so no release branch was
>>> created.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking about this for the upcoming release. If all works well we will base
>>> a product on it which I would like to support directly from such a release
>>> branch.
>>>
>>> The hard part is how people could decide on pooling resources on this. Defining
>>> goals for such a branch and stuff. E.g. only take serious fixes? What about
>>> package updates? Security fixes? changes on the toolchain or classes?
>>>
>>> This is up to the group who wants to support such a branch. Anyone else
>>> interested in doing this for 2011-03?
>>
>> I discussed this with Philip and Graeme and the idea is to retire
>> angstrom-2008.1.conf into that branch. I still have customers (you
>> indirectly :))
> 
> Well aware of it. :)
> 
>> using that, so having it in that branch would be very neat.
> 
> That sounds pretty good to me. I wanted to move on after this release anyway.
> Angstrom 2010 based on OE-Core would be my favourite. :)

Angstrom 2010 based on yocto is looking better each day, I just fixed
the last 2 bugs preventing meta-toolchain from building. We just need
get thru the breakage associated with the yocto -> oe-core transition :)

> Does this mean you would like to get some "final" fixes into such  branch as
> well? If we would need to think about what we would accept in there.

I suspect I'll need to fix bugs in TI stuff for that branch, but I don't
want to have that branch turn in to a "oe-core is too scary, we'll
develop in here" type of thing.
I like Esbens idea of stable branch management, but that might be too
strict for others.

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNUnh/MkyGM64RGpERAusnAJsHM1GVb7kosWmY69NooAnvQaNQTQCbBeqe
5/Je8zmoyp6lWwsBuxBHD68=
=hqIT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----