From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SS8Ix-0007Yn-LO for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 09 May 2012 16:55:52 +0200 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q49Ejs6A017010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 May 2012 07:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.25.32.41] (172.25.32.41) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.255.0; Wed, 9 May 2012 07:45:53 -0700 Message-ID: <4FAA8321.707@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 09:45:53 -0500 From: Jason Wessel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <1336571192-15711-1-git-send-email-jason.wessel@windriver.com> <1336573316.5602.68.camel@phil-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1336573316.5602.68.camel@phil-desktop> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Cc: Phil Blundell Subject: Re: [PATCH] .gitignore: add /bitbake to the ignore list for external distributions X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 14:55:52 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/09/2012 09:21 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 08:46 -0500, Jason Wessel wrote: >> External distributions based on the oe-core will typically include >> bitbake in the top level directory. The idea is to make it easy >> for external distributions to easily assemble a distribution >> with a pristine version of oe-core, add avoid the git untracked messages: > > Presumably any non-trivial external distribution is going to include > other metadata as well, in which case they're going to have to > edit .gitignore for themselves anyway. So it doesn't really seem as > though having bitbake be mentioned there in oe-core buys much. > > On the other hand, actually moving bitbake inside the oe-core repository > seems like an idea which might have some merit. It's not obvious that > having it in its own tree really achieves anything other than making > release engineering slightly more difficult. It appeared to me that the bitbake was maintained by an entirely different group of people, but oe-core is completely tied to bitbake. It might always be the case that it will still be a separate repository and perhaps this is a side effect of how the poky git vs the development of the Yocto Project are maintained, with the other work flow being to assemble a distribution. Technically the poky git has the same issue, but you do not see it because of the way it is managed. Ideally I would have liked to see that change as well, but I understand it is done that way for simplicity vs using git submodules or subgit trees with a tool like repo or others. It would be interesting to hear a few more view points on this topic. Jason.