Re: `PR = "r0"`: Add or not to add?

[Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>]

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

Op 31-08-11 14:43, Anders Darander schreef:
> * Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> [110831 14:36]:
>> Op 31 aug. 2011, om 14:27 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> 
>>> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 13:16:50 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Op 31-08-11 13:55, Anders Darander schreef:
>>>>> To sad. It's a lot easier to remember to bump the PR, when PR
>>>>> actually is in the recipe. Thus, including PR=0 will often remove
>>>>> one issue with patches.
>>>> 
>>>> That's what review is for, no?
>>> 
>>> Surely you'd rather people have a better chance of getting it right
>>> the first time rather than you having to remind them for every patch?
>>> The almost insignificant burden of a PR = "r0" in each recipe seems
>>> worthwhile to me if it even helps a single person remember.
> 
>> I've found that in .dev having PR = r0 in recipes is a bigger burden 
>> than not having them, especially when using shared .inc files like 
>> xorg. And there have been enough patches where people don't get PR 
>> bumps right even if there's a PR already in the recipe. So I'm 
>> unconvinced that it makes a real difference in "getting it right".
> 
>> Even in the extreme case that every packaging patch is missing a PR 
>> bump that, for me,  is less annoying than issues I faced in .dev with 
>> PR = r0 sprinkled throughout the metadata.
> 
> Just curious (and it might convince me and others) what issues have PR = 
> "r0" caused in .dev?

The most recent one in .dev was xorg .inc files. Some recipes had PR, some
didn't, and some had INC_PR. In this specific case there should have been
only one PR (or INC_PR) in the .inc.

And of course the good old "add PR=r0 to the .inc, making older recipes go
backwards" thing.

In OE-core/meta-oe the most recent annoyance were the gcc recipes, which now
finally have a centrally managed PR.

No situation is perfect, but my *personal* experience is that not adding
PR=r0 is *less* annoying than adding it.

The big difference between classic OE and the OE-core way is that things are
a lot cleaner to start with, so PR=r0 might be safer to use, but I'd like to
err on the side of caution.

If you all feel really strongly about PR=r0 I'd advice you to send patches
to add it to recipes that need it in OE-core and after those get accepted
send patches for the recipes in meta-oe.

regards,

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

iD8DBQFOXjCDMkyGM64RGpERAi6IAJ9gfcBsVYJnmUyUfuG2FYzM1gwLBwCfS50P
0/Nfa+jBKCmb/T3pNjxwHds=
=bsOl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----