[Buildroot] State of your Qt 5 patches

[Buildroot] State of your Qt 5 patches

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello Peter,

You have quite a few Qt5 related patches waiting in patchwork. However,
since you haven't used any version number for your patches, it's not
necessarily obvious which patches are still current, and which version
is the latest them.

Could you have a look at the following patches, and let me know which
ones no longer makes sense (because you have sent a new version) and
which ones still make sense:

 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320476/
 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320475/
 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320472/
 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320462/
 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320407/
 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317465/
 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317462/
 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317461/

Remember that you can manage your own patches on patchwork (to mark the
old versions as superseded) by creating a patchwork account.

Fatih, I've Cc'ed you in case you have a bit of time to look at these
patches, and maybe review/test them.

Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] State of your Qt 5 patches

[Peter Kümmel]

On 02.03.2014 00:28, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> You have quite a few Qt5 related patches waiting in patchwork. However,
> since you haven't used any version number for your patches, it's not
> necessarily obvious which patches are still current, and which version
> is the latest them.
>
> Could you have a look at the following patches, and let me know which
> ones no longer makes sense (because you have sent a new version) and
> which ones still make sense:
>
>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320476/
>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320475/
>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320472/
>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320462/
>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320407/
>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317465/
>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317462/
>   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317461/

Hi Thomas,

the patches where intended for 2014.02.

Maybe we should simply drop them and wait for Qt 5.3, planned for 29th Apr 2014:
http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt-5.3-release

Peter

>
> Remember that you can manage your own patches on patchwork (to mark the
> old versions as superseded) by creating a patchwork account.
>
> Fatih, I've Cc'ed you in case you have a bit of time to look at these
> patches, and maybe review/test them.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Thomas
>

[Buildroot] State of your Qt 5 patches

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Peter K?mmel,

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:35:07 +0100, Peter K?mmel wrote:

> > Could you have a look at the following patches, and let me know which
> > ones no longer makes sense (because you have sent a new version) and
> > which ones still make sense:
> >
> >   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320476/
> >   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320475/
> >   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320472/
> >   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320462/
> >   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320407/
> >   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317465/
> >   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317462/
> >   http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317461/
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> the patches where intended for 2014.02.

And why wouldn't they be usable now?

> Maybe we should simply drop them and wait for Qt 5.3, planned for 29th Apr 2014:
> http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt-5.3-release

That doesn't seem like a good idea. April, 29th will be very close to
2014.05-rc1, and so it might be too late to get the changes in.

I would really like those Qt 5.2.1 changes to get it now. Can you tell
me which patches from the list above still make sense?

Thanks!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] State of your Qt 5 patches

[Peter Kümmel]

On 02.03.2014 12:31, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Peter K?mmel,
>
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:35:07 +0100, Peter K?mmel wrote:
>
>>> Could you have a look at the following patches, and let me know which
>>> ones no longer makes sense (because you have sent a new version) and
>>> which ones still make sense:
>>>
>>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320476/
>>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320475/
>>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320472/
>>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320462/
>>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320407/
>>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317465/
>>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317462/
>>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317461/
>>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> the patches where intended for 2014.02.
>
> And why wouldn't they be usable now?
>
>> Maybe we should simply drop them and wait for Qt 5.3, planned for 29th Apr 2014:
>> http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt-5.3-release
>
> That doesn't seem like a good idea. April, 29th will be very close to
> 2014.05-rc1, and so it might be too late to get the changes in.
>
> I would really like those Qt 5.2.1 changes to get it now. Can you tell
> me which patches from the list above still make sense?

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320476/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320475/

But I haven't tested them with current master, but I could check with master next week.

BTW, what's the correct way to update a patch?
Just sending to the list like a new one and to superseded on patchwork?

Thanks,
Peter

>
> Thanks!
>
> Thomas
>

[Buildroot] State of your Qt 5 patches

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Peter K?mmel,

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:41:53 +0100, Peter K?mmel wrote:

> >>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320476/
> >>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320475/
> >>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320472/
> >>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320462/
> >>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320407/
> >>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317465/
> >>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317462/
> >>>    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/317461/
> >>
> >> Hi Thomas,
> >>
> >> the patches where intended for 2014.02.
> >
> > And why wouldn't they be usable now?
> >
> >> Maybe we should simply drop them and wait for Qt 5.3, planned for 29th Apr 2014:
> >> http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt-5.3-release
> >
> > That doesn't seem like a good idea. April, 29th will be very close to
> > 2014.05-rc1, and so it might be too late to get the changes in.
> >
> > I would really like those Qt 5.2.1 changes to get it now. Can you tell
> > me which patches from the list above still make sense?
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320476/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/320475/

Thanks. Apparently you or someone else has already updated the status
of all the other patches.

> But I haven't tested them with current master, but I could check with master next week.

Yes, it would be good. Also, Fatih, could you have a look at Peter's
patches, and give your Acked-by/Reviewed-by as appropriate?

> BTW, what's the correct way to update a patch?

Resend it to the list, after updating it to the latest master. Make
sure you change the patch version by doing:

git send-email --subject-prefix="PATCH v2"

and by including a changelog either in the patch itself below the "---"
sign, or in the cover letter.

See
http://buildroot.org/downloads/manual/manual.html#_patch_revision_changelog
for more details.

> Just sending to the list like a new one and to superseded on patchwork?

Yes, but make sure to change the subject prefix to include a version
number, and include a changelog in the cover letter.

Thanks a lot!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] State of your Qt 5 patches

[Peter Kümmel]

On 02.03.2014 12:31, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should simply drop them and wait for Qt 5.3, planned for 29th Apr 2014:
>> http://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt-5.3-release
>
> That doesn't seem like a good idea. April, 29th will be very close to
> 2014.05-rc1, and so it might be too late to get the changes in.

Release Candidate is planned for 10th Apr 2014, maybe I find the time to update earlier.

>
> Thomas
>