[oe] Discussion: Version retention policy in oe-core

[Tom Rini]

On 03/14/2011 03:22 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
> On 03/14/2011 11:58 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The TSC has discussed this item at the request of the community and has
>> come up with the following recommendation which we are looking for
>> feedback (positive/negative/neutral) before putting this up on the wiki.
>
> Looks reasonable. One thing I did not see is asking people not to add a
> new recipe and delete the old one in separate commits. This makes it
> easier to figure out problems when they arise.

So, part of what is envisioned here is that for, grabbing a recent 
example, nodejs 0.4.0 to 0.4.2 we just see a git mv, and that's the 
normal case for that level of things.  But for say 0.4.9 to 0.5.0 (or 
would it be 0.6.0?  I don't track the project, but next stable release 
that's not in 0.4.x) it would be add 0.5.0 one commit, drop 0.4.9 the 
next,  Does this still fit, given your comment?

>
> Philip
>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Discussion: Version retention policy in oe-core
>> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:05:25 -0600
>> From: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com>
>> Reply-To: tsc at lists.openembedded.org
>> Organization: Wind River Systems
>> To: <tsc at lists.openembedded.org>
>>
>> This is a follow on to Tom's original post. The attempt is to merge his
>> original thoughts with my own.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> As has been discussed in a few places, there needs to be a policy that
>> is followed about how long to retain (or when to replace) old recipes
>> within the oe-core repository as well as what to do with older versions
>> of things.
>>
>> It is expected that OE will have a related meta-oe or similar layers
>> which older components can be moved into while they are still useful and
>> desirable to maintain. However, these will be alternative versions and
>> not the "core" version any longer.
>>
>> Within the oe-core we can divide the components into two classes.
>> Critical infrastructure components and standard components. The critical
>> components include the toolchain, autotools, and key libraries.
>> Virtually everything else fits into the standard components bucket.
>>
>> We also have use cases such as:
>> - Upstream provides provides support (new releases) and clear guidelines
>> on upgrading for version 4.0 (current), version 3.8 (previous and
>> stable) and version 3.6 (further previous, stable). Upstream is also
>> working on version 4.1.x (unstable, active development).
>> - Upstream provides no clear policy about what's supported other than
>> current.
>> - Community standards indicate a specific version should be used rather
>> then the latest for some reason
>> - An architecture requires specific versions.
>>
>> We would like to propose the following:
>>
>> The goal of oe-core is to remain a stable, yet up-to-date set of
>> software that forms the foundation of the Open Embedded world. While not
>> everyone will be able to agree on a broad definition of "stable, yet
>> up-to-date" the following guidelines will help define the rules for the
>> inclusion and/or replacement of different versions into the oe-core.
>>
>> First, each of the packages need to be divided into two categories:
>> Critical Infrastructure and Core components. If an item is neither of
>> these, then the oe-core is likely the wrong place for the component.
>>
>> By default we want to use the latest stable version of each component.
>> The latest stable version of each component is defined by the
>> component's upstream. When there is no clear policy from upstream we
>> simply have to apply best judgment.
>>
>> There of course will be exceptions to the default policy. However, when
>> an exception occurs it must be clearly stated and documented when and
>> why we did not use the latest stable version -- or why we may have
>> multiple versions available of a given component. This will allow us to
>> reevaluate the exceptions on a timely basis and decide the exception is
>> no longer reasonable.
>>
>> Most of these exceptions will be located in the critical infrastructure
>> components, specifically the toolchains. In many cases we will need to
>> support variants of these components either for stability or
>> architectural reasons.
>>
>> Another common exception is to meet specific policy or compatibility
>> objectives within the system, such as the need to support both GPLv2 and
>> GPLv3 versions of selected components.
>>
>> If multiple versions are provided, usually the latest stable version
>> will be preferred, however best judgment will be used to determine the
>> preferred version.
>>
>> As existing versions of removed, if they are still desirable, they
>> should be moved into meta-oe or a suitable layer.
>>
>> We also have the issue of upcoming development versions it is suggested
>> that upcoming development versions of software be worked on in specific
>> development layers until they have reach sufficient maturity to be
>> considered stable and ready for inclusion in oe-core.
>>
>> Related to this are:
>> - We want to encourage distributions that are tracking the latest to try
>> and stay with the latest.
>> - We want to encourage recipes which people are interested in to be
>> maintained long term to be maintained, long term, in meta-oe.
>> - We want to encourage distributions to work with and add to / maintain
>> the core rather than deciding we have too frequent of an unhelpful churn
>> (which is to say 4.0.1 -> 4.0.2 of $whatever is good, 4.0.1 -> 4.4.3 of
>> $whatever is not).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>


-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation