From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f43.google.com (mail-it0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500C3719F4 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:34:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l8so24368814iti.1 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 04:35:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RCTCSTwE7803Rvg6+r66jznVb6zAk2lzWaBk6W446Ys=; b=fEdzQh2Ylw/B1pdHAQJMiPF+mz+J9IbM5jofkhRySS2s1v/NBUFJnfTW+rV2vV4PTz 6CiF3VGw+IL8/wBSSEQCMxl6UWAjldGVXJR64oX4EvOAjnHIuGjvslAYlgNiQA5WBs8B i4nOLRcTKNk3+a4DwkU8Ptmm3vfcdDZMRs/YCEA79BYzE9GsUsxtTbgynpI2q/dXK2OW hCLij5Ge0YoszKa55QfIjbM2r/Uw5GP5hzCIBVoAKsq6h8HnRRAPQ7IFpzQes8NV6S2T CVyvMlCiqgwDYWoZuFagTogwcyLJFHnUll9DhunLUJLMNyuPM7spzo3UpAuJZzRM8Ydn JFPA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RCTCSTwE7803Rvg6+r66jznVb6zAk2lzWaBk6W446Ys=; b=BtwIX93d8g7v0cxCcvG91zFw079LAuANmR/aTwKYF7SXAfB/9rYWKiIAkdvvwT+CHt zP4jeAlKd2Y6oB5JMfslRfGQECa9gz8wyM4mcfJLQpnSJigQtsBY5Qf6SPRPtM2gHDVX KZU5eBy5oM4HDFukqESU1fxJy7N6QbiqIgKRIA597Grw1RPVG9g+FJeGIPe0xIe+fmZ8 I9CZ3ZCmabmF4n5YT/c7t6wVZlXqGTFevGj6Z7oVDEA1rL3W1/aIFyITTUcPWs+5Est6 nABVPUat/xKObYGa1/zfBIe+qbk3RZRn24BrZP5U3zcRRRpSFhXfuKTQiK6Zovequ1Tf uJwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvf0FqVpmxTT0iwdE25b/1r6oK49EliZVUlNji3ANu9+shnA9RDmrXuDL7C+v59qIbKY X-Received: by 10.36.20.4 with SMTP id 4mr8277977itg.93.1479472500322; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 04:35:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8EE38.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.238.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l3sm2936735ioa.7.2016.11.18.04.34.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 04:34:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1479472496.27625.22.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Christopher Larson Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:34:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1479396394-26134-1-git-send-email-fabio.berton@ossystems.com.br> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH] libpcap: Fix build when PACKAGECONFIG ipv6 is not enable X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 18 Nov 2016 12:34:59 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 09:24 -0700, Christopher Larson wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Fabio Berton > wrote: > No, I created a patch, git format-patch and then edit > generated files with Upstream-Status tag and added to recipe. > Is this wrong? > > As I indicated in my first reply, it’s best to put the tag outside the > generated patch (above it, or below the —-), as it isn’t part of the > commit, only part of the patch file. Now I'm confused. My understanding was that http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations explicitly asks for Upstream-Status in the patch header. Taking an existing example, is http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/tree/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0001-core-device.c-Change-the-default-device-timeout-to-2.patch doing it wrong? > It’s minor, and you don’t need to re-submit, but in general the tag > is not part of the commit message. For example, if your patch was > applied to a git repository with git-am, it’d be in the commit > message, which should not be the case. Yes, that's indeed the effect. That has pros (the Upstream-Status tag is preserved when working with devtool) and cons (patch as attached to a recipe is not the same as the patch upstream). -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.