[oe] Plans for OE classic future

[Paul Menzel]

Am Samstag, den 26.11.2011, 14:36 -0700 schrieb Tom Rini:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> > 2011/11/26 Tom Rini
> >
> >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >> > On 2011-11-25 23:04, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks 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.

This is still not understandable. I understand that you want developers
to move to OE-core and meta-oe. But trying to force people by making
master read-only is the wrong way. It just arbitrarily puts a burden on
current users. You can advertise prominently that OE-core and meta-oe
should be used. Over the time people will move and a lot of people have
expressed their willingness to move in the future.

> 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.

I thought that was always possible in the past.

> - 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.

As Bernhard noted in this reply. OE-Core and meta-oe seriously lack
documentation. And if it is just that our Wiki currently is still based
on OE-classic. And in my experience not a lot of people put effort
behind it and just neglect it.

(New users will search for tutorials and help on the WWW and there
currently a lot is dealing with OE-classic.)


Thanks,

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/attachments/20111126/37944f00/attachment-0002.sig>