Re: Patchwork & patch handling improvements

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3859 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 07:49:50AM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> Hi Trevor,
> 
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:19:35 Trevor Woerner wrote:
> > On 11/26/15 16:00, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > I'm also
> > > trying to ensure that the patch validation is generic enough so it can
> > > live in OE-Core, and thus we can easily update and refine it over time in
> > > line with the code itself as well as encourage submitters to use the
> > > script on their own changes before sending.
> > 
> > This all sounds like an improvement and is therefore a step in the right
> > direction :-)
> > 
> > A while back I had the idea of "porting" the kernel's "checkpatch.pl" to
> > The Yocto Project (it was around the same time that I was trying to
> > float the whole "Maintainers File" idea too, since I was also trying to
> > re-purpose "get-maintainer.pl" as well). About one minute into that
> > effort I realized the existing *.bb files were all over the place in
> > terms of the order of statements and the order of the blocks of
> > statements. At that time I found one recipe style guide from OE, and
> > another one from The Yocto Project, each of which described a slightly
> > different preference. So I asked on the mailing list and quickly
> > discovered that both groups prefer a different style.
> > 
> > I'm not saying this job isn't worth doing, but I am pointing out there's
> > the potential for feathers to be ruffled on both sides if someone tries
> > to produce a definitive style guide for recipe files and then enforces
> > it in an automated way. Since it is the OpenEmbedded Project's job to
> > provide the recipes for The Yocto Project, I'm guessing this question
> > needs to be decided by them? If that sounds reasonable, then maybe The
> > Yocto Project needs to acquiesce to OE's decision?
> 
> I don't think there's that much of a division. I don't recall if it was you 
> that raised it at the time but the issue of having two style guides did get 
> rectified - I changed the one on the Yocto Project wiki to simply be a link to 
> the OE style guide in June last year. It certainly didn't come about through a 
> conscious decision to have a different style.
> 
> However there is a minor disagreement over indentation for shell functions 
> between OE-Core and other layers - this persists because of the backporting 
> pain a blanket replacement would potentially lead to. As I recall this did get 
> discussed at the OE TSC level. I think that's one thing we could just not 
> evaluate (or make an option) until such time as we resolve the difference - and 
> I do mean to see it resolved at some point in the future.

Using consistent indentation (4 spaces) at least for new metadata would
be step in right direction.

With the amount of changes which are backported to older releases I
still don't see this "backporting pain" argument. Doing it just before
the release is of course useful, because e.g. now more changes will be
backported to Jethro than to Fido or Dizzy. So having consistent
indentation in Jethro and master would prevent 95% of "backporting
pain". Maybe some Yocto 10.0 will finally get the meaning of
"consistent" indentation.

Regards,

> > Instead of cross-posting, maybe this would be a good email for the new
> > architecture list (CC'ed)?
> 
> Perhaps yes; I'm a bit concerned that list still doesn't have that many 
> subscribers though (currently 28, two of which are the same person).
> 
> Cheers,
> Paul
> 
> -- 
> 
> Paul Eggleton
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]