[oe] Plans for OE classic future

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Andreas Oberritter
<obi at opendreambox.org> wrote:
> On 23.11.2011 23:25, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks
>> <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2011/11/23 Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Mats Kärrman <Mats.Karrman at tritech.se>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any plans for new releases and/or maintenance branches of OE
>>>> classic?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2011.03-maintenance is the last release of OE classic. As long as the
>>>> branch is maintained
>>>>
>>>> _
>>>>
>>>> Related: I noticed TSC plans to discuss on whether or not to make oe
>>> classic read only.
>>>
>>> I'd like to suggest leaving it open for those of us that are still using
>>> it.
>>
>> 2011.03-maintenance branch is maintained and that would be place to go.
>>
>>
>>> For instance I have still products that are based on OE classic. If there
>>> is a problem that is of a generic nature, I'm more than happy to submit
>>> patches so others in the same situation can benefit from it.
>>> (actually I have one pending with a new version of netsnmp; the current
>>> recipe does not build with uclibc, whereas the latest version of netsnmp
>>> does; found/fixed this today, but haven't had time to make a commit)
>>>
>>> And if there is no interest any more it'll eventually die. But as of now I
>>> do see people working on/with it (see the commit log).
>>
>> those fixes are intended for 2011.03-maintenance which go into master and then
>> get cherry-picked
>
> So master needs to stay open in order to get patches there first before
> being cherry-picked into 2011.03-maintenance, right?
>
> I also don't like the idea to make it read-only. Those who already
> switched to oe-core are free to just ignore the classic master branch.
> Others should still be able to push bugfixes etc, if they care enough
> about it.

<Putting on TSC hat>
The problem with this mindset is that we don't want to have
oe-core+meta-oe+etc and oe.dev diverge any more than they had at the
start.  This is why at some point master needs to become read-only.
Everyone and their master based project can still fetch and build and
work.  But if you're going right now and saying "I need to start a new
project and it should be oe.dev+master based", please speak up now
about why you're unable to use oe-core+etc.  We can't solve what we
don't know is a problem and frankly I think the TSC is of the mind
that oe-core+etc is as good as or better than oe.dev.  If we're wrong,
someone needs to tell us what's missing.

<Taking off TSC hat, putting on just my own>
In the beginning it felt like oe-core was missing a lot of handy
little things that oe.dev had gone off and made since the last time
there had been a sync up into poky (but there were its own good ideas
in there!).  We've now finally reached the point where it's really
just mechanical "migrate recipes A/B/C" (and not to trivialize these
efforts!).  I think it would be bad to go back to the point of "well,
now we need to move $concept from oe.dev into oe-core".

-- 
Tom