Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 13:42 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 11/23/16 12:56 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > "Have all patches applied to BitBake and OpenEmbedded-Core (if present)
> > been submitted to the open source community?"
> > 
> > Shouldn't the wording be change to something like "all applicable
> > patches" or "all generally useful patches"?
> > 
> > It seems strange to send project specific patches together with cover
> > saying that they aren't generally applicable and shouldn't be merged,
> > just because of this requirement.
> 
> It was done this way to prevent people from cheating and claiming something was
> (effectively) not useful/applicable/etc when it some special secret sauce.

Perhaps one could use [FYI] instead of [PATCH] in the mail subject to
make the intention even clearer, and patchwork could get configured to
not track such patches or at least not show them as new? Just a thought.

As it stands now, there's an entry for this patch that someone
(Richard?) will have to close:
https://patchwork.openembedded.org/series/4056/

-- 
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.