<div dir="ltr">Any comment about this RFC?<div><br></div><div>Should I send rebased version?</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:58 PM Otavio Salvador <<a href="mailto:otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br">otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello Martin,<br>
<br>
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Martin Jansa <<a href="mailto:martin.jansa@gmail.com" target="_blank">martin.jansa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
...<br>
> This RFC doesn't implement it all, but it makes naming all the artifacts in<br>
> consistent way a bit easier. If there is an agreement that OE should support<br>
> the naming scenario described above, I'll submit the rest of the changes.<br>
<br>
I think it all makes sense and if we preserve current behavior as<br>
default I see it as a very good addition :-)<br>
<br>
I didn't test the patches myself and I'd like to do a more extensive<br>
test once you send the full patchset.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems<br>
<a href="http://www.ossystems.com.br" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ossystems.com.br</a> <a href="http://code.ossystems.com.br" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://code.ossystems.com.br</a><br>
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750<br>
</blockquote></div>