From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com (mail1.windriver.com [147.11.146.13]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EE06070F for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:12:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.14.9/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0U9CQ0B002188 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 Jan 2015 01:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from yu.wr (128.224.163.160) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 01:12:26 -0800 Message-ID: <54CB4AF7.2000302@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:12:23 +0800 From: Pengyu Ma User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Purdie , Nicolas Dechesne References: <1422435425-20620-1-git-send-email-pengyu.ma@windriver.com> <54CA05D4.6040404@windriver.com> <54CAE393.2020605@windriver.com> <54CB3932.2090308@windriver.com> <1422608720.5312.13.camel@linuxfoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1422608720.5312.13.camel@linuxfoundation.org> X-Originating-IP: [128.224.163.160] Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [V2][PATCH] mesa: Upgrade to 10.4.0 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: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:12:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/30/2015 05:05 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 09:02 +0100, Nicolas Dechesne wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Pengyu Ma wrote: >>> Understood, but there are 2 version mesa_xxx.bb and mesa_git.bb. >>> Is there any reason why keep two versions? >> right. this is indeed a good question. I am not sure what the >> 'semantics' of the _git.bb recipe really is. In my minds the _git was >> supposed to point to development branch, or -rc release... looking at >> history it seems we keep it in sync with the other mesa recipe.. so i >> am not actually sure why we do that.. maybe someone else can answer. > There once was a plan to have something closer to upstream for testing > and getting things from the SCM is the way to do that. The indent was to > learn about issues before they got released rather than afterwards. > > As such, we have pieces of this around, the poky-bleeding DISTRO setting > for example was meant to enable the git versions of recipes. > > Some people when developing/testing/debugging have developed git > versions of recipes and where they still work and aren't a maintenance > burden, we've left them. I've personally used a few recipes like that > and I know others have too. > > I do still dream of the day we'll have the resources/technology to make > poky-bleeding a reality again. > > So the git recipe is intended to look beyond the last stable release or > otherwise be the same. Thanks for kindly explanation, it makes more clear about _git. I will re-submit another mesa_10.4.3 and same _git version. Thanks, Pengyu > Cheers, > > Richard >