From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([93.97.175.187]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UYIJb-0003nF-6a for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 17:54:32 +0200 Received: from localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r43FcMMj006746; Fri, 3 May 2013 16:38:22 +0100 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at dan.rpsys.net Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3FAgb6Sg6S06; Fri, 3 May 2013 16:38:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] (rpvlan0 [192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r43FcFkZ006739 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 3 May 2013 16:38:17 +0100 Message-ID: <1367595374.27116.0.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Martin Jansa Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 16:36:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20130502164613.GE3206@jama> References: <1367506593-11381-1-git-send-email-jukka.rissanen@linux.intel.com> <1367506593-11381-3-git-send-email-jukka.rissanen@linux.intel.com> <20130502153930.GD3206@jama> <20130502164613.GE3206@jama> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.2-0ubuntu0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] neard: Use SRCREV instead of SRCPV X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 15:54:35 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 18:46 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 05:11:28PM +0100, Burton, Ross wrote: > > On 2 May 2013 16:39, Martin Jansa wrote: > > >> -PV = "0.10+git${SRCPV}" > > >> +PV = "0.10+git${SRCREV}" > > > > As the git revision is the 0.10 tag, wouldn't it be clearer to not set > > PV as the git revision is a detail of the fetcher - this *is* 0.10. > > That's fine too as long as nobody bumps SRCREV without updating PV or > uses AUTOREV from some .inc or local.conf. Agreed, regardless, SRCREV in PV is not correct, we shouldn't do that and we have SRCPV for a reason. Cheers, Richard