Fido and dizzy collaboration?

Fido and dizzy collaboration?

[Richard Purdie]

Hi Armin, Joshua,

I've just been looking at the patches queued for the dizzy/fido
branches. In fact I ended up merging them before I realised there are
some issues.

The problem is there are dizzy patches which aren't in fido, which
breaks our policies. Could the two of you work to resolve that and give
me fido branch to pull which resolved it please?

I didn't take the dizzy patch related to S = ${WORKDIR} since that
looked more like a change appropriate to master only. The bitbake
patches also need handling on the bitbake list if we really do want to
backport them to 1.26 and 1.24.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Fido and dizzy collaboration?

[Joshua Lock]

On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 21:39 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> Hi Armin, Joshua,
> 
> I've just been looking at the patches queued for the dizzy/fido
> branches. In fact I ended up merging them before I realised there are
> some issues.
> 
> The problem is there are dizzy patches which aren't in fido, which
> breaks our policies. Could the two of you work to resolve that and
> give
> me fido branch to pull which resolved it please?

Sure, I'll start working on this today.

Regards,

Joshua

Re: Fido and dizzy collaboration?

[Joshua Lock]

Hi Richard,

On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 21:39 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> Hi Armin, Joshua,
> 
> I've just been looking at the patches queued for the dizzy/fido
> branches. In fact I ended up merging them before I realised there are
> some issues.
> 
> The problem is there are dizzy patches which aren't in fido, which
> breaks our policies. Could the two of you work to resolve that and
> give
> me fido branch to pull which resolved it please?

I just had a look at changes merged to dizzy in the past two weeks,
assuming the issues were recent, and found the following changes in
dizzy which I didn't have in fido:
* Some QEMU CVE fixes, those don't apply to the newer QEMU in fido
(2.2.0 vs. 2.1.0).
* A fix for CVE-2015-5477 in bind, fido has a different patch to
include this - probably not worth a revert & merge though?
* Three lib/oeqa changes - I've cherry-picked them to my joshuagl/fido
-next branch[1].

In future I'll keep an eye on changes tagged for dizzy too and try to
help avoid this happening again.

Regards,

Joshua

1. http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=joshua
gl/fido-next

Re: Fido and dizzy collaboration?

[akuster808]

On 09/01/2015 01:39 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> Hi Armin, Joshua,
> 
> I've just been looking at the patches queued for the dizzy/fido
> branches. In fact I ended up merging them before I realised there are
> some issues.
> 
> The problem is there are dizzy patches which aren't in fido, which
> breaks our policies. 

I thought the changes had to be in Master first. Are you saying I need
to wait for them to be in fido first?

Could the two of you work to resolve that and give
> me fido branch to pull which resolved it please?

Will do.

- armin
> 
> I didn't take the dizzy patch related to S = ${WORKDIR} since that
> looked more like a change appropriate to master only. The bitbake
> patches also need handling on the bitbake list if we really do want to
> backport them to 1.26 and 1.24.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
>