From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B37371B58 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:13:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id j65so74192686iof.0 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 03:13:44 -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=9bej04XnLbkKDkPcTG8IBtUe5EleIMwNhyi6oQIQY8g=; b=AAz8anAWJxG3HtApjPeV7c/q+ooRvorPAzeIzecSGSLbSKWtp/ORLE8GD3czc+8qeG C5fZoJgQ83CdEeUjvjdFje+y+WLOjISlfhbEXTQBjdSoEfUxqC4+Zx5d7QtdMRwcIxyI fSr3YM5PwV0A82JPV8mRC+CUQ12sny4Et4uD5gAllDEyQ4L9K5pUS1glReKsLqTPY1n3 Fg0buOXE4wEgKVPsb7lCFYZNG9zxUKLTQnbCELQ0+6dGhjLm1fetTMnScA6tY2CjlNEj z0/ckIxId3m/FDq0j9iOg/hJ6WWHel4nt6sBhCCcz1S/v/OhKt0sobGawa0WSulsMxj6 At8A== 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=9bej04XnLbkKDkPcTG8IBtUe5EleIMwNhyi6oQIQY8g=; b=LegeXX7o3IyrG+mpI8F0Vjq2S0G+ToBGaG1aQ8BG++fIssIA9vKm8M+F7m+qHLETy4 bRrteselvsKDL1wI9Ew8d3wU3khli8OV/5LFxoSFqZunyhzI6WDvPBwuI6UBUwNxW9/X RXQUPZz65+faI8Cc387i5WS6Y+G1oH3bkjNUZDAPsEhyfSOuyy+Oagm+1MagUq0hU8YN 4BSB6XRLIc7VaMbnSVwr0b4eohRcl0BCbEOUQlu5XgBBUXp+wLwVKNxCZvW4aIpPamBG 5Guojgy4pxdq1ahBI9X+srUw/AfIPQZ4cdRXOMihxRm4EuuOZmpr+Q64ac8tRcttiVCM 1Z/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00AS1+7DtwxDwbHdYqls5mWh1dGoj/AHgLXLZxWsYZAPsfZ3f4ArdiNGgqPXUznptyC X-Received: by 10.36.40.139 with SMTP id h133mr1560890ith.40.1479986024302; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 03:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8D6D7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.214.215]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e68sm13192095ioj.39.2016.11.24.03.13.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Nov 2016 03:13:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1479986020.6873.36.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Mark Hatle Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:13:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20161123174209.211349-1-mark.hatle@windriver.com> <20161123174209.211349-2-mark.hatle@windriver.com> <20161123181039.GF3265@jama> <20161123185617.GH3265@jama> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer 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: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:13:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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.