<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:17 AM Joshua Watt <<a href="mailto:jpewhacker@gmail.com">jpewhacker@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 07:36 -0500, Matt Hoosier wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:20 AM Richard Purdie <<a href="mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 08:47 -0500, Matt Hoosier wrote:<br>
> Thanks for the help getting this landed. With this change being part<br>
> of Bitbake, what's the procedure for attempting to get it backported<br>
> to the final MR of Yocto 2.2? Do I just backport it to a certain<br>
> maintenance branch of Bitbake (announced somehow with a prefix on the<br>
> git-send-email subject) and it would magically pop up out the<br>
> corresponding branch of poky if accepted to Bitbake?<br>
<br>
With bitbake its a case of requesting backports to the appropriate<br>
stable release branches, either in the form of a patch with [1.3X] in<br>
the subject, or just mention which revision to cherry-pick to which<br>
branch if it cherry-picks cleanly.<br>
<br>
I think to get back to 2.2, we'd have to backport to 1.38, 1.36, 1.34<br>
and 1.32. I do get nervous about patches which land in master and then <br>
immediately get backported across so many releases. I'm less nervous if<br>
the patches cleanly cherry-pick as at least the code is the same. How<br>
cleanly does it backport?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div></div></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It might be worth looking through meta-oe also, at least as a reference point.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">I don't think there are any recipes using gitsm:// protocol in git://<a href="http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded">git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded</a> either (at least, on the 2.2 branch).</span> </div></div></div>