From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T8oxN-0001Yr-HG for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:58:01 +0200 Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2012 01:45:39 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,366,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="217494901" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.121.161]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2012 01:45:22 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Koen Kooi Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:45:21 +0100 Message-ID: <1482699.RloAfy9ffa@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.9 (Linux/3.2.0-29-generic-pae; KDE/4.9.0; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <81163693-909A-48E2-A67C-2F753F31B815@dominion.thruhere.net> References: <6771659.ZmALF9uaXJ@helios> <81163693-909A-48E2-A67C-2F753F31B815@dominion.thruhere.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] Package group fixes 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: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:58:01 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tuesday 04 September 2012 10:38:03 Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 3 sep. 2012, om 18:35 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven: > > On Monday 03 September 2012 18:26:14 Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Op 3 sep. 2012, om 12:30 heeft Paul Eggleton > >> > > > het volgende geschreven: > >>> This rather large set of changes renames "task" to "packagegroup" and > >>> attempts to clean up a number of package group related issues [1]. It > >>> doesn't go quite as far as I had hoped - I wanted to tidy up the base, > >>> core-lsb and core-basic recipes even further, but unfortunately I ran > >>> out of time for this cycle. > >> > >> Instead of replying to a ton of patches, I'll reply to the cover letter > >> :) > >> > >> Missing PR bumps > > > > Why would you need a PR bump when renaming the entire recipe? > > Take 15/28 for example, it changes the output package and doens't do a PR > bump. The changes are intended to be considered as a whole, in which case it is not important. Look, I can make the PR bumps if it makes you feel better - that's all it will actually achieve however. Is this the only feedback you have on this series? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre