From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QLwte-0005RG-Aa for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 16 May 2011 14:27:38 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4GCOkoY019314 for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 13:24:46 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 18999-07 for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 13:24:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4GCOdLB019308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 13:24:40 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: References: <1305120614.30391.349.camel@rex> Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 13:24:38 +0100 Message-ID: <1305548678.3424.55.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] RFC Distro config changes X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 12:27:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 17:27 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:30, Richard Purdie > wrote: > > I've taken feedback on board, tweaked the series and then merged it. My > > reasoning is that whilst this might not be 100% perfect in every way, it > > moves us a lot closer to where we want to be. We were going to start > > seeing patch conflicts if it was out of tree for too long and that > > didn't seem worthwhile. > > I have expected at least another review cycle since this is a huge > change and potential to change a lot of stuff for users... Its a process of iterative improvement. I'm not calling what is there now 100% complete, just a lot better than what preceded it. If there are further changes needed, lets discuss them! :) Cheers, Richard