From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:51:36 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Your daily results for 2019-08-18 In-Reply-To: References: <20190819054333.566812D8079@tinkie.tkos.co.il> <20190819124959.quvccga35p2ggkrf@sapphire.tkos.co.il> <20190819145514.19722372@windsurf.home> <4a15c906-869d-d069-1e3a-b6cefff69f1f@mind.be> <20190819233256.01c0f4a1@windsurf.home> <87zhk4erxo.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <77298569-2f0f-d650-d396-3ea4be5b09eb@mind.be> Message-ID: <20190821075136.GA12477@scaer> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Arnout, All, On 2019-08-20 21:18 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: > On 20/08/2019 21:10, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > On 20/08/2019 00:00, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > >>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > >> > "we only show the highest release" -> release-monitoring.org doesn't > >> > have the notion of "stable branches" from upstream or anything like > >> > that. It even considers -rc versions to be more recent than a regular > >> > official release. > >> > >> > But I see your point that anyway release-monitoring.org is only very > >> > partially helping to track whether we need to update for security > >> > reasons. A CVE-related tracking tool (such as what Matt Weber was > >> > working on back then) would be better suited for this task. > >> > >> > If you agree with this, then perhaps the autobuild.b.o/stats/ page, and > >> > the corresponding JSON output, should be generated based on the next > >> > branch rather than the master branch. > >> > >> Presumably only if next exists (and then we have to remember to delete > >> it as soon as we merge it into master and not just let it linger until > >> the next release)? > > > > That would be a good idea anyway. I've known people to be confused by the > > lingering next branch. > > Or perhaps it's a better idea to reverse the logic: on -rc1, create the stable > branch already, and treat master as next. IOW, avoid creating a next at all. I would argue in favour of this solution. > But then we should probably also update the branches info for the autobuilders > to make sure the stable branch gets sufficient testing. This is relatively easy: just update http://autobuild.buildroot.org/branches with new branches and new ratios. Regards, Yann E. MORIN. > Regards, > Arnout > > > > > > >> > Should I go ahead and make the change ? > >> > >> It sounds sensible to me, yes. > > > > +1 > > > > Regards, > > Arnout > > -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'