[oe] Plans for OE classic future

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
<fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/11/26 Tom Rini <tom.rini at gmail.com>
>
>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Ulf Samuelsson
>> <ulf_samuelsson at telia.com> wrote:
>> > On 2011-11-25 23:04, Tom Rini wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
>> >> <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> After all, isn't one of the purposes of OE to promote information
>> >>> sharing,
>> >>> cooperation and the use of openembedded technology (and not make things
>> >>> harder).
>> >>
>> >> One of the points of making master read-only would be to ensure that
>> >> changes aren't lost.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps the transition needs to be:
>> >> - master is as it is today
>> >> - master becomes oe-core backport || master-only bugfixes only
>> >> - master becomes read only.
>> >>
>> >> And we go from the first step to the second step sometime sooner
>> >> rather than later.  The top of my head date would be before the
>> >> paid-developers go on end of year breaks to try and make sure all the
>> >> hobbyist folks start their hacking with oe-core+etc rather than master
>> >> and risk getting caught later.  I'm open to arguments on why that's
>> >> exactly backwards...
>> >>
>> >
>> > Won't it be a problem for existing projects, if you cannot add fixes to
>> cope
>> > with new host OS versions.
>> >
>> > At the moment, openembedded-classic does not build properly with Ubuntu
>> > 11.10 .
>>
>> Won't what be a problem?  Either oe-core+meta-oe+etc fails on 11.10
>> (so, fix it there first then backport changes) or it's fine and you
>> can either find the relevant changes there and move them or it's a
>> oe.dev-only bug and just needs to be fixed, under my proposal (until
>> we reach the point where everyone is OK calling it r/o).
>>
>> And part of this is to say that yes, existing projects external to
>> oe.dev need to move to oe-core(+meta-oe+whatever else) (where layers
>> should be making their life easier or again, there's problems we're
>> unaware of and need to be made aware of) or explain why they can't
>> ever move (and are forking the project?).
>
> See the message on NIOS that I just posted.

Addressed there :)

> Also I am not opposed to making oe classic master the place where patches
> may land before they end up in the maintenance thread, but I am strongly
> opposed to making OE classic read only on short notice (which as suggested
> by Koen earlier).

I believe master needs to go read-only, or at least
backport||master-only-problems bugfix only, sooner rather than later.

The arguments seem to be:
- Some people or projects use master and can't move
* So don't move, but do expect to need to either migrate to
2011.03-maintenance or carry more fixes locally.  With my
2011.03-maintenance hat on, if someone says for my project to move I
need N patches moved from master to maintenance, I'm fine reviewing
that pull request.

- There's concern that $something won't be able to work with oe-core+meta-oe+etc
* These are problems that either need to be fixed or assumptions that
aren't correct.

- Lack of recipes in meta-oe
* The recipes people need have been moved, stuff that isn't can be
when someone needs it.  id3lib was mentioned as an example of why
there might be problems getting things moved to meta-oe.  I can't help
but notice it's also been moved into meta-oe.

-- 
Tom