[oe] Splitting meta-oe?
Joe MacDonald
Joe_MacDonald at mentor.com
Fri Feb 17 18:28:17 UTC 2017
[Re: [oe] Splitting meta-oe?] On 17.02.17 (Fri 19:02) Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:24:09PM +0100, Andreas Müller wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com> wrote:
> > > The recent storm of breakage in meta-oe caused by recipe specific sysroots
> > > was quite dramatic:
> > >
> > > ross at flashheart ~/Yocto/meta-oe ((044e518...))
> > > $ git grep PNBLACKLIST| wc -l
> > > 320
> > >
> > > Is it time to talk about splitting meta-oe into smaller real repositories
> > > so they can be maintained at their own pace by more maintainers?
> > >
> > > Ross
> > What exactly gets better by splitting?
>
> I agree with Andreas.
And I agree with both of you.
> 1) RSS is good thing.
>
> 2) The breakage wasn't caused by lack of maintainers (at least I don't
> think that I or Joe were the bottleneck for integrating the fixes).
My schedule is highly variable but I do try to be responsive to
breakages and I do my best to watch and digest the state of the world
messages, those are extremely valuable IMO.
> 3) More maintainers doesn't mean more contributions from people actually
> using now broken components, it's actually easier to just send a fix
> than to be a maintainer of some layer just to be able to also merge
> your fix yourself.
>
> 4) It doesn't look so dramatic if it turns out that 200 of those
> blacklisted recipes weren't actually used by anyone still active in
> OE ecosystem.
Agreed. And if those blacklisted recipes are something that someone
in the ecosystem cares about, they really should be sending fixes back
upstream. Breaking meta-oe up into smaller parts doesn't seem likely to
make them more likely to send patches, AFAICT. Probably won't make them
less-so, either, but I don't see changing the structure to be a
significant win.
And do note that when we first created meta-networking I was proposing
it be separate from meta-oe, I'm now completely on the other side of
that argument, for what that's worth.
> 5) If someone wants to replace me as meta-oe maintainer, go ahead, it
> stopped being fun for me long time ago, now it's just slightly annoying
> routine which takes my free time I would rather invest in something
> cooler
I frankly think that'd be a loss for everyone, but it's understandable.
That's a big, largely thankless job you've taken on. Obviously I can't
offer to take on more of the job than I already have with
meta-networking or I would, but maybe someone else with a similarly "big
picture" view will be able to share some of the workload.
-J.
>
> Regards,
>
> > Splitting = Rotting to death due to unmanageable maintenance burden
> > caused by oe? Don't misunderstand me recipe specific sysroot is
> > basically a good thing. But I am tired of this game. As you can see in
> > meta-qt5-extra: I am interested in having cool images not in a cool
> > build system. Long live core-image-sato!
> >
> > Andreas
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openembedded-devel mailing list
> > Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>
> --
> Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
--
-Joe MacDonald.
:wq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/attachments/20170217/64c63b07/attachment-0002.sig>
More information about the Openembedded-devel
mailing list