[oe] [OE-core] [RFC PATCH] base.bbclass: Deprecate the PRINC logic

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 14:00 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>         On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 16:37 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>         > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:51:36AM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>         > > Background:
>         > >
>         > > At the recent TSC meeting we were discussing ways of
>         removing the PRINC
>         > > in favor of the PR server, which should now be standard.
>          The first step
>         > > in this process is coming up with a simple patch that
>         declared PRINC as
>         > > deprecated.  If this type of patch is successful, the
>         block of code could
>         > > be replaced with a bb.error eventually.
>         > >
>         > > It is not expected that this patch will go in by itself,
>         but instead
>         > > should be coordinated with changes to the recipes in
>         common layers such
>         > > as openembedded-core, meta-openembedded/meta-* and other
>         community layers.
>         >
>         > This doesn't say what's the process of getting all PR
>         increments
>         > applied.
>         >
>         > Should we send list of recipes and required PR increments
>         per layer (and
>         > someone will sum these increments and create actual PR bump
>         from it). Or
>         > will we take turns and send actual PR bump patches per layer
>         and someone
>         > will define order of layers to go in (so that we prevent
>         many conflicts
>         > while merging)?
>         
>         
>         This is something we need to figure out. The realistic process
>         is
>         probably do this layer by layer. If we can batch some up
>         together that
>         would obviously be better...

> If this is the case, to ensure we have the PR in sync we should have
> it PRINC as a bb.error; this will cause some pain but will avoid
> PRServer picking the layer PRINC and losing it in next build. Or does
> PRServer handle this gracefully?

I proposed this but other TSC members didn't like the approach and would
prefer a grace/warning period, maybe spanning until after the next
release.

I can see the arguments both ways...

Cheers,

Richard