[bitbake-devel] [PATCH v5] fetch/gitsm: avoid live submodule fetching during unpack()

[Matt Hoosier]

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:17 AM Joshua Watt <jpewhacker at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 07:36 -0500, Matt Hoosier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:20 AM Richard Purdie <
> richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 08:47 -0500, Matt Hoosier wrote:
> > Thanks for the help getting this landed. With this change being part
> > of Bitbake, what's the procedure for attempting to get it backported
> > to the final MR of Yocto 2.2? Do I just backport it to a certain
> > maintenance branch of Bitbake (announced somehow with a prefix on the
> > git-send-email subject) and it would magically pop up out the
> > corresponding branch of poky if accepted to Bitbake?
>
> With bitbake its a case of requesting backports to the appropriate
> stable release branches, either in the form of a patch with [1.3X] in
> the subject, or just mention which revision to cherry-pick to which
> branch if it cherry-picks cleanly.
>
> I think to get back to 2.2, we'd have to backport to 1.38, 1.36, 1.34
> and 1.32. I do get nervous about patches which land in master and then
> immediately get backported across so many releases. I'm less nervous if
> the patches cleanly cherry-pick as at least the code is the same. How
> cleanly does it backport?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> It's not a completely clean back-port; some of the context lines don't
> match because of changes to the logic that detect when a repository uses
> gitsubmodules to begin with. The actual logic changes lift pretty-much
> straight in though.
>
> I appreciate your point about being cautious when putting unproven code
> straight into a branch that gets used for maintenance releases though. So I
> could understand wanting to let it prove out on master for a while.
> Conversely, there are no recipes in Poky that use gitsm to begin with, so I
> don't know how much additional confidence would really be gained just
> through time. Is that also an argument that the potential impact to the
> stable branch of poky's own metadata is small?
>
>
> It might be worth looking through meta-oe also, at least as a reference
> point.
>
>
I don't think there are any recipes using gitsm:// protocol in git://
git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded either (at least, on the 2.2 branch).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/bitbake-devel/attachments/20180608/d5e0f8fc/attachment-0002.html>