Re: [oe-commits] [openembedded-core] branch thud updated (ad0a553 -> 748f946)

[akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com>]

On 3/17/19 9:25 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 08:38:20AM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
>>
>> On 3/17/19 6:08 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 08:50:13AM -0700, akuster808 wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/19 5:20 AM, Andreas Müller wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> 2. This was applied on Feb 6th which is not 3 month back exactly.
>>>> then its worst than I thought, I can't remember what my thought process
>>>> was back to Feb 6th.
>>>>> [1] https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Stable_branch_maintenance#Point_release
>>>> I am glad you are bringing these things up, it helps me revisit my own
>>>> processes and help me improve.
>>>>
>>>> We are planning on revising the maintenance guidelines soon so I hope to
>>>> get your input.
>>> Was the boost upgrade in thud sent to the mailing list for review?
>> That series did not, the previous ones and several Sumo request have.
>>
>> So you are the second person to mention the update, is it causing a
>> problem?
> You were requesting input.
>
> I am not using boost on Yocto, but in Debian it is pretty normal
> that several packages stop building each time boost gets updated.
>
> "Drop signals library as upstream has removed it" in the backported
> commit shows the tip of this iceberg.
>
> What went wrong that even the removal of a library from boost
> did not prevent this change from entering a stable branch?

Like I said before, I don't recall the thought process when that series
was put together.

>
>>> My reading of the "Requesting a fix in a stable branch" section 
>>> would be that this is already a mandatory part of the process.
>> That is not under the "Maintainers procedure" so it does not apply.
>>
>> I have taken requests via IRC and a simple "please add this to stable
>> branch X" emails so I have not been enforcing the letter of the law. 
>> ...
>> Like I have mentioned already, the processes mentioned in
>> "Stable_branch_maintenance" are under review.
> One problem is that changes to master are getting better reviewed than 
> changes to stable branches.
>
> Upgrading boost in a stable branch wouldn't have survived a mailing
> list review.
I would hope so.

>
> A possible improvement would be to always use thud-next, and each time 
> commits are added to thud-next an email thread with all new commits gets 
> sent to the mailing list (similar to the review threads for new upstream 
> stable kernels, see [1] for an example).
That is what I do for meta-openembedded and then I send a pull request.

- Armin
>
>> regards,
>> Armin
> cu
> Adrian
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/12/1290
>