Re: [PATCH 0/4] linux-yocto: consolidated update

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 13:15 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 16:06 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >> Here's a consolidated update that I've had under test in one
> >> way or another for 3 weeks now. Tom Z and others have also been
> >> using parts of this for their work, so it has seen a reasonably
> >> wide set of testers.
> >>
> >> This series further streamlines working with linux-yocto* based
> >> recipes/repositories by breaking the last branch based triggers
> >> in the tooling. Branches were the most important piece of
> >> information when working with the tools and a linux-yocto repository,
> >> but this has now been generalized, and BSP descriptions (among
> >> other things) are now found by MACHINE and kernel type only.
> >>
> >> With this, KBRANCH now becomes what it was supposed to be, an
> >> human readible indication of the branch that is supposed to be
> >> built, and one that the kern-tools will validate. If that branch
> >> is not validated, an error is thrown. If the default branch is
> >> left as-is, then the in-tree description leaves you on the
> >> proper branch and all is well.
> >>
> >> I also have a collection of bug fixes to the tools, including
> >> support for having a meta branch not called 'meta'.
> >>
> >> I'd recommend that this go through some AB tests, and I'll be
> >> around if there's a corner case that I managed to miss.
> >
> > I think
> >
> > http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org:8010/builders/nightly-tiny/builds/199/steps/shell_34/logs/stdio
> 
> Judging by the timestamps on your two email, is this not addressed by
> the workaround
> for git's behaviour ?

Correct, it fails with the fix applied so I think its something
different.

>  On the surface, it looks to be the same thing,
> since a branch that
> should exist in the repository isn't there.
> 
> I'll fire of a poky-tiny build for qemu here, to see if I can
> reproduce this one.

We also have an atom-pc failure which may or may not be related:

http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org:8010/builders/nightly-x86/builds/648/steps/shell_50/logs/stdio

Cheers,

Richard