[oe] RFC: reverse the name change for org.oe.stable

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello,

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Richard Purdie <rpurdie at rpsys.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 00:46 +0200, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
>  > Yes, do not use _<scm> recipes in stable stuff, a known checkout of
>  > the OE stable branch should either build or not for a particular
>  > machine/distro/... combo.
>  >
>  > If I checkout today's stable tree in one year time, it should build. Period.
>  >
>  > That isn't going to work with _<scm> recipes being active in stable.
>
>  Floating SCM versions won't be reproducible, fixed SCM versions will. If
>  SCM versions are used they need to be locked to a version.
>

Agreed, so I would like to propose the stable branch should not need
to support floating SCM versions.

Only full lock-down (and tarball mirrors) will make our stable trees
useful in the long term.

It's an important property of a stable tree, that third parties using
them can rely on them to be able to perform a bug fix in say, one year
time.

That reminds me, we should lock-down (and include) the corresponding
bitbake version in the stable tree as well.

Regards,
-- 
Leon