[OE-core] Patchwork & patch handling improvements

Paul Eggleton paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com
Wed Dec 2 03:01:40 UTC 2015


On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:47:20 Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 07:49:50AM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > Hi Trevor,
> > 
> > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:19:35 Trevor Woerner wrote:
> > > On 11/26/15 16:00, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > > I'm also
> > > > trying to ensure that the patch validation is generic enough so it can
> > > > live in OE-Core, and thus we can easily update and refine it over time
> > > > in
> > > > line with the code itself as well as encourage submitters to use the
> > > > script on their own changes before sending.
> > > 
> > > This all sounds like an improvement and is therefore a step in the right
> > > direction :-)
> > > 
> > > A while back I had the idea of "porting" the kernel's "checkpatch.pl" to
> > > The Yocto Project (it was around the same time that I was trying to
> > > float the whole "Maintainers File" idea too, since I was also trying to
> > > re-purpose "get-maintainer.pl" as well). About one minute into that
> > > effort I realized the existing *.bb files were all over the place in
> > > terms of the order of statements and the order of the blocks of
> > > statements. At that time I found one recipe style guide from OE, and
> > > another one from The Yocto Project, each of which described a slightly
> > > different preference. So I asked on the mailing list and quickly
> > > discovered that both groups prefer a different style.
> > > 
> > > I'm not saying this job isn't worth doing, but I am pointing out there's
> > > the potential for feathers to be ruffled on both sides if someone tries
> > > to produce a definitive style guide for recipe files and then enforces
> > > it in an automated way. Since it is the OpenEmbedded Project's job to
> > > provide the recipes for The Yocto Project, I'm guessing this question
> > > needs to be decided by them? If that sounds reasonable, then maybe The
> > > Yocto Project needs to acquiesce to OE's decision?
> > 
> > I don't think there's that much of a division. I don't recall if it was
> > you
> > that raised it at the time but the issue of having two style guides did
> > get
> > rectified - I changed the one on the Yocto Project wiki to simply be a
> > link to the OE style guide in June last year. It certainly didn't come
> > about through a conscious decision to have a different style.
> > 
> > However there is a minor disagreement over indentation for shell functions
> > between OE-Core and other layers - this persists because of the
> > backporting
> > pain a blanket replacement would potentially lead to. As I recall this did
> > get discussed at the OE TSC level. I think that's one thing we could just
> > not evaluate (or make an option) until such time as we resolve the
> > difference - and I do mean to see it resolved at some point in the
> > future.
> 
> Using consistent indentation (4 spaces) at least for new metadata would
> be step in right direction.
> 
> With the amount of changes which are backported to older releases I
> still don't see this "backporting pain" argument. Doing it just before
> the release is of course useful, because e.g. now more changes will be
> backported to Jethro than to Fido or Dizzy. So having consistent
> indentation in Jethro and master would prevent 95% of "backporting
> pain". Maybe some Yocto 10.0 will finally get the meaning of
> "consistent" indentation.

I agree it's not ideal. I said above, I do want to see it resolved.

Leaving indentation aside for a moment do you have any comments on my 
proposal?

Thanks,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre



More information about the Openembedded-core mailing list