[oe] Plans for OE classic future

[Raffaele Recalcati]

On Nov 26, 2011 11:02 PM, "Paul Menzel" <paulepanter at users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Choosing now the baseline for dm3730 with my colleagues it seems that it
will be arago, that is still oe-classic, because Ti is releasing dvsdk
based on it. If Ti moves with arago to oe-core we move as well to it.
Very clean and simple decision, isn't it?

> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>