Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Liu, Song]

Hi all,

This is to restate and clarify the schedule for Yocto Project 1.2 M4 (milestone 4). If you are concerned or have patches you would like to merge, please see the following dates:

1. RC3 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 8th, 2012, PDT
2. RC3 build: April 11th, 2012, PDT
3. RC4 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 15th, 2012, PDT
4. RC4 build: April 18th, 2012, PDT
5. YP 1.2 release: April 27th, 2012, PDT

You can also check out the schedule here: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?height=600&wkst=1&bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&src=mg0m150m30gs891eqqhtfu5jgg%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%238C500B&src=sc7rov4ck552t2f0pav120t7r0%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%23528800&src=theyoctoproject%40gmail.com&color=%23182C57&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles 

Please feel free to let me and Beth know if you have any concerns or questions.

Thanks!
Song
PM, Yocto Project

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Julian Pidancet]

On 04/09/12 19:01, Liu, Song wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This is to restate and clarify the schedule for Yocto Project 1.2 M4 (milestone 4). If you are concerned or have patches you would like to merge, please see the following dates:
> 
> 1. RC3 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 8th, 2012, PDT
> 2. RC3 build: April 11th, 2012, PDT
> 3. RC4 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 15th, 2012, PDT
> 4. RC4 build: April 18th, 2012, PDT
> 5. YP 1.2 release: April 27th, 2012, PDT
> 
> You can also check out the schedule here: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?height=600&wkst=1&bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&src=mg0m150m30gs891eqqhtfu5jgg%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%238C500B&src=sc7rov4ck552t2f0pav120t7r0%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%23528800&src=theyoctoproject%40gmail.com&color=%23182C57&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles 
> 
> Please feel free to let me and Beth know if you have any concerns or questions.
> 
> Thanks!
> Song
> PM, Yocto Project

Hi,

I don't see any commits tagged for these milestones in
git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core at the moment. Will there be a
release tag or a release branch created on the git repository when YP
1.2 comes out, to indicate people that there's a "stable" version of
oe-core they can use ?

-- 
Julian

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 01:51 +0100, Julian Pidancet wrote:
> On 04/09/12 19:01, Liu, Song wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > This is to restate and clarify the schedule for Yocto Project 1.2 M4 (milestone 4). If you are concerned or have patches you would like to merge, please see the following dates:
> > 
> > 1. RC3 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 8th, 2012, PDT
> > 2. RC3 build: April 11th, 2012, PDT
> > 3. RC4 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 15th, 2012, PDT
> > 4. RC4 build: April 18th, 2012, PDT
> > 5. YP 1.2 release: April 27th, 2012, PDT
> > 
> > You can also check out the schedule here: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?height=600&wkst=1&bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&src=mg0m150m30gs891eqqhtfu5jgg%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%238C500B&src=sc7rov4ck552t2f0pav120t7r0%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%23528800&src=theyoctoproject%40gmail.com&color=%23182C57&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles 
> > 
> > Please feel free to let me and Beth know if you have any concerns or questions.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > Song
> > PM, Yocto Project
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I don't see any commits tagged for these milestones in
> git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core at the moment. Will there be a
> release tag or a release branch created on the git repository when YP
> 1.2 comes out, to indicate people that there's a "stable" version of
> oe-core they can use ?

Yes, there will be a branch created on OE-Core. 

At this point the actual branch naming/tagging is a little in flux.
There was some discussion about this at collaboration summit and the BSP
summit but there was no conclusion.

I've tried to write an email on the subject and it basically goes around
in circles. Ideally we need a scheme which can be used in all the layers
which doesn't contain numbers as these may conflict with various layer
schemes. The poky release names at least do that. Ideally people also
want something sortable with more context such as the year. Doing this
without numbers is harder.

I'm reluctant to change the numbering/branch scheme at this point in a
release as its unfair to release engineering and the documentation
maintainers.

Its a hard problem...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Koen Kooi]

Op 12 apr. 2012, om 11:02 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 01:51 +0100, Julian Pidancet wrote:
>> On 04/09/12 19:01, Liu, Song wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> This is to restate and clarify the schedule for Yocto Project 1.2 M4 (milestone 4). If you are concerned or have patches you would like to merge, please see the following dates:
>>> 
>>> 1. RC3 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 8th, 2012, PDT
>>> 2. RC3 build: April 11th, 2012, PDT
>>> 3. RC4 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 15th, 2012, PDT
>>> 4. RC4 build: April 18th, 2012, PDT
>>> 5. YP 1.2 release: April 27th, 2012, PDT
>>> 
>>> You can also check out the schedule here: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?height=600&wkst=1&bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&src=mg0m150m30gs891eqqhtfu5jgg%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%238C500B&src=sc7rov4ck552t2f0pav120t7r0%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%23528800&src=theyoctoproject%40gmail.com&color=%23182C57&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles 
>>> 
>>> Please feel free to let me and Beth know if you have any concerns or questions.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Song
>>> PM, Yocto Project
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I don't see any commits tagged for these milestones in
>> git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core at the moment. Will there be a
>> release tag or a release branch created on the git repository when YP
>> 1.2 comes out, to indicate people that there's a "stable" version of
>> oe-core they can use ?
> 
> Yes, there will be a branch created on OE-Core. 
> 
> At this point the actual branch naming/tagging is a little in flux.
> There was some discussion about this at collaboration summit and the BSP
> summit but there was no conclusion.
> 
> I've tried to write an email on the subject and it basically goes around
> in circles. Ideally we need a scheme which can be used in all the layers
> which doesn't contain numbers as these may conflict with various layer
> schemes. The poky release names at least do that. Ideally people also
> want something sortable with more context such as the year. Doing this
> without numbers is harder.

I'm still a big fan of using 'yoctoproject-1.2' as substring for tags and branches. The objections I heard to that didn't make sense to me, but I see this as a purely technical matter where others see it as something different :)

> I'm reluctant to change the numbering/branch scheme at this point in a
> release as its unfair to release engineering and the documentation
> maintainers.


"it's only software" :p

regards,

Koen

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 06:29, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> I'm still a big fan of using 'yoctoproject-1.2' as substring for tags and branches. The objections I heard to that didn't make sense to me, but I see this as a purely technical matter where others see it as something different :)

OE-Core branch could be 2012-1.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Koen Kooi]

Op 12 apr. 2012, om 16:24 heeft Otavio Salvador het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 06:29, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>> I'm still a big fan of using 'yoctoproject-1.2' as substring for tags and branches. The objections I heard to that didn't make sense to me, but I see this as a purely technical matter where others see it as something different :)
> 
> OE-Core branch could be 2012-1.

Yes, but experience has shown that PHBs and new yocto users want to see 'yocto' in the name and go apeshit when it's missing. OTOH people will hate whatever gets chosen, so let's get this over with and pick a name and strongly recommend other layers to adopt it as well. 

We can't do worse than fedora: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2012-February/003044.html

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Eric Bénard]

Le Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:39:52 +0200,
Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> a écrit :

> 
> Op 12 apr. 2012, om 16:24 heeft Otavio Salvador het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 06:29, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> >> I'm still a big fan of using 'yoctoproject-1.2' as substring for tags and branches. The objections I heard to that didn't make sense to me, but I see this as a purely technical matter where others see it as something different :)
> > 
> > OE-Core branch could be 2012-1.
> 
> Yes, but experience has shown that PHBs and new yocto users want to see 'yocto' in the name and go apeshit when it's missing. OTOH people will hate whatever gets chosen, so let's get this over with and pick a name and strongly recommend other layers to adopt it as well. 
> 
FWIW I'm also in favor of a tag yocto-1.2 for the OE-core release which
yocto 1.2 is based on.

Eric

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> Le Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:39:52 +0200,
> Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> a écrit :
>
>>
>> Op 12 apr. 2012, om 16:24 heeft Otavio Salvador het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 06:29, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>> >> I'm still a big fan of using 'yoctoproject-1.2' as substring for tags and branches. The objections I heard to that didn't make sense to me, but I see this as a purely technical matter where others see it as something different :)
>> >
>> > OE-Core branch could be 2012-1.
>>
>> Yes, but experience has shown that PHBs and new yocto users want to see 'yocto' in the name and go apeshit when it's missing. OTOH people will hate whatever gets chosen, so let's get this over with and pick a name and strongly recommend other layers to adopt it as well.
>>
> FWIW I'm also in favor of a tag yocto-1.2 for the OE-core release which
> yocto 1.2 is based on.

This is one of those things were someone just needs to decide or a
group of people need to vote. It's not worth debating anymore - you
can't make everyone happy. As long as it's tagged though.

-M

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Khem Raj]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>
> Op 12 apr. 2012, om 11:02 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 01:51 +0100, Julian Pidancet wrote:
>>> On 04/09/12 19:01, Liu, Song wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> This is to restate and clarify the schedule for Yocto Project 1.2 M4 (milestone 4). If you are concerned or have patches you would like to merge, please see the following dates:
>>>>
>>>> 1. RC3 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 8th, 2012, PDT
>>>> 2. RC3 build: April 11th, 2012, PDT
>>>> 3. RC4 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 15th, 2012, PDT
>>>> 4. RC4 build: April 18th, 2012, PDT
>>>> 5. YP 1.2 release: April 27th, 2012, PDT
>>>>
>>>> You can also check out the schedule here: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?height=600&wkst=1&bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&src=mg0m150m30gs891eqqhtfu5jgg%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%238C500B&src=sc7rov4ck552t2f0pav120t7r0%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%23528800&src=theyoctoproject%40gmail.com&color=%23182C57&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles
>>>>
>>>> Please feel free to let me and Beth know if you have any concerns or questions.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Song
>>>> PM, Yocto Project
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't see any commits tagged for these milestones in
>>> git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core at the moment. Will there be a
>>> release tag or a release branch created on the git repository when YP
>>> 1.2 comes out, to indicate people that there's a "stable" version of
>>> oe-core they can use ?
>>
>> Yes, there will be a branch created on OE-Core.
>>
>> At this point the actual branch naming/tagging is a little in flux.
>> There was some discussion about this at collaboration summit and the BSP
>> summit but there was no conclusion.
>>
>> I've tried to write an email on the subject and it basically goes around
>> in circles. Ideally we need a scheme which can be used in all the layers
>> which doesn't contain numbers as these may conflict with various layer
>> schemes. The poky release names at least do that. Ideally people also
>> want something sortable with more context such as the year. Doing this
>> without numbers is harder.
>
> I'm still a big fan of using 'yoctoproject-1.2' as substring for tags and branches. The objections I heard to that didn't make sense to me, but I see this as a purely technical matter where others see it as something different :)
>

I think that string is fine as long as its just for yocto but I think
for OE-Core we are going to do a General release
so tagging that with something yocto project will be very confusing
unless we plan to do different releases of OE-Core for general
availability
and yocto project. I dont think we have bandwidth for that. And since
poky repository makes a copy of OE-Core metadata it can be tagged in
yoctoproject specific tags

since OE-Core is at center of all layers I would propose that other
layers when tagged contain OE-Core's release tag in their own tags
name

so something like <layer-tag>-<OE-Core-tag its targetting>

>> I'm reluctant to change the numbering/branch scheme at this point in a
>> release as its unfair to release engineering and the documentation
>> maintainers.


Lets keep it as we have it. Its quite generic.


>
>
> "it's only software" :p
>
> regards,
>
> Koen
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 13:55, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm still a big fan of using 'yoctoproject-1.2' as substring for tags and branches. The objections I heard to that didn't make sense to me, but I see this as a purely technical matter where others see it as something different :)
>
> I think that string is fine as long as its just for yocto but I think
> for OE-Core we are going to do a General release
> so tagging that with something yocto project will be very confusing
> unless we plan to do different releases of OE-Core for general
> availability
> and yocto project. I dont think we have bandwidth for that. And since
> poky repository makes a copy of OE-Core metadata it can be tagged in
> yoctoproject specific tags
>
> since OE-Core is at center of all layers I would propose that other
> layers when tagged contain OE-Core's release tag in their own tags
> name
>
> so something like <layer-tag>-<OE-Core-tag its targetting>

I agree; yocto tag ought to be check in yocto git repository. What we
need is to have an OE-Core release at same time.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Koen Kooi]

Op 12 apr. 2012, om 18:55 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Op 12 apr. 2012, om 11:02 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 01:51 +0100, Julian Pidancet wrote:
>>>> On 04/09/12 19:01, Liu, Song wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is to restate and clarify the schedule for Yocto Project 1.2 M4 (milestone 4). If you are concerned or have patches you would like to merge, please see the following dates:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. RC3 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 8th, 2012, PDT
>>>>> 2. RC3 build: April 11th, 2012, PDT
>>>>> 3. RC4 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 15th, 2012, PDT
>>>>> 4. RC4 build: April 18th, 2012, PDT
>>>>> 5. YP 1.2 release: April 27th, 2012, PDT
>>>>> 
>>>>> You can also check out the schedule here: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?height=600&wkst=1&bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&src=mg0m150m30gs891eqqhtfu5jgg%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%238C500B&src=sc7rov4ck552t2f0pav120t7r0%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%23528800&src=theyoctoproject%40gmail.com&color=%23182C57&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please feel free to let me and Beth know if you have any concerns or questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Song
>>>>> PM, Yocto Project
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I don't see any commits tagged for these milestones in
>>>> git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core at the moment. Will there be a
>>>> release tag or a release branch created on the git repository when YP
>>>> 1.2 comes out, to indicate people that there's a "stable" version of
>>>> oe-core they can use ?
>>> 
>>> Yes, there will be a branch created on OE-Core.
>>> 
>>> At this point the actual branch naming/tagging is a little in flux.
>>> There was some discussion about this at collaboration summit and the BSP
>>> summit but there was no conclusion.
>>> 
>>> I've tried to write an email on the subject and it basically goes around
>>> in circles. Ideally we need a scheme which can be used in all the layers
>>> which doesn't contain numbers as these may conflict with various layer
>>> schemes. The poky release names at least do that. Ideally people also
>>> want something sortable with more context such as the year. Doing this
>>> without numbers is harder.
>> 
>> I'm still a big fan of using 'yoctoproject-1.2' as substring for tags and branches. The objections I heard to that didn't make sense to me, but I see this as a purely technical matter where others see it as something different :)
>> 
> 
> I think that string is fine as long as its just for yocto but I think
> for OE-Core we are going to do a General release
> so tagging that with something yocto project will be very confusing
> unless we plan to do different releases of OE-Core for general
> availability
> and yocto project. I dont think we have bandwidth for that. And since
> poky repository makes a copy of OE-Core metadata it can be tagged in
> yoctoproject specific tags
> 
> since OE-Core is at center of all layers I would propose that other
> layers when tagged contain OE-Core's release tag in their own tags
> name
> 
> so something like <layer-tag>-<OE-Core-tag its targetting>

You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?" questions :) 

Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we actually mean "oe-core".

Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches.

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?" questions :)
>
> Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we actually mean "oe-core".
>
> Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches.

I think layers ought to have tags for both ...

<layer>-oe-core-<tag>
<layer>-yocto-<tag>

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:39:52PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
> We can't do worse than fedora: 
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2012-February/003044.html

Are you suggesting we adopt a new "Unhealthy snacks" or "Junk food" versioning 
schema? :)

-- 
Denys

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:32:00PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> > You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?" questions :)
> >
> > Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we actually mean "oe-core".
> >
> > Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches.
> 
> I think layers ought to have tags for both ...
> 
> <layer>-oe-core-<tag>
> <layer>-yocto-<tag>

And <layer>-poky-<tag> for completeness?

Seriously, "yocto"-naming schema is not that bad. For shortness, it can be 
"yp-1.2" as a suffix to the layer-specific tags...

But I'm flexible with other naming schemas, such as "YYYY.MM" or "YYYY.#"

-- 
Denys

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 14:32 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> > You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?" questions :)
> >
> > Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we actually mean "oe-core".
> >
> > Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches.
> 
> I think layers ought to have tags for both ...
> 
> <layer>-oe-core-<tag>
> <layer>-yocto-<tag>

This would be rather sad if it were necessary. The whole point is we're
trying to build things which are compatible with each other. If that
turns out not to be the case I want to fix it, not encourage it.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 15:40, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> I think layers ought to have tags for both ...
>>
>> <layer>-oe-core-<tag>
>> <layer>-yocto-<tag>
>
> This would be rather sad if it were necessary. The whole point is we're
> trying to build things which are compatible with each other. If that
> turns out not to be the case I want to fix it, not encourage it.

They will be compatible but users wouldn't be asking: Does layer X
works with OE-Core Y and Yocto W?

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Julian Pidancet]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that string is fine as long as its just for yocto but I think
> for OE-Core we are going to do a General release
> so tagging that with something yocto project will be very confusing
> unless we plan to do different releases of OE-Core for general
> availability
> and yocto project. I dont think we have bandwidth for that. And since
> poky repository makes a copy of OE-Core metadata it can be tagged in
> yoctoproject specific tags
>

In case there is an oe-core general availability release separated
from the yocto release, when would that happen ? Is there anything
planned yet ?

-- 
Julian

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Flanagan, Elizabeth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1654 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:32:00PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
> wrote:
> > > You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?"
> questions :)
> > >
> > > Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names
> in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we
> actually mean "oe-core".
> > >
> > > Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core
> "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches.
> >
> > I think layers ought to have tags for both ...
> >
> > <layer>-oe-core-<tag>
> > <layer>-yocto-<tag>
>
> And <layer>-poky-<tag> for completeness?
>
> Seriously, "yocto"-naming schema is not that bad. For shortness, it can be
> "yp-1.2" as a suffix to the layer-specific tags...
>
> But I'm flexible with other naming schemas, such as "YYYY.MM" or "YYYY.#"
>
>
I'm open to whatever naming scheme people want to decide on with few
caveats. That it be painstakingly documented. That it can handle point
releases and release candidates. I personally like YYYY.MM schemes, but, in
the end, all I care about is that it's flexible, agreed upon and very well
documented.

-b

--
> Denys
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>



-- 
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Build and Release

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2778 bytes --]

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 08:31:13PM +0100, Julian Pidancet wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think that string is fine as long as its just for yocto but I think
> > for OE-Core we are going to do a General release
> > so tagging that with something yocto project will be very confusing
> > unless we plan to do different releases of OE-Core for general
> > availability
> > and yocto project. I dont think we have bandwidth for that. And since
> > poky repository makes a copy of OE-Core metadata it can be tagged in
> > yoctoproject specific tags
> >
> 
> In case there is an oe-core general availability release separated
> from the yocto release, when would that happen ? Is there anything
> planned yet ?

There is a plan to have oe-core tagged at the same time as the Yocto Project 
release. That's what we've discussed at BSP and Collab Summits. Here we are 
deciding on the naming for those tags.

There are no plans to have separate OE-Core releases - i.e. separate from the 
corresponding Yocto Project releases.

-- 
Denys

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Philip Balister]

On 04/12/2012 11:40 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 14:32 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>> You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?" questions :)
>>>
>>> Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we actually mean "oe-core".
>>>
>>> Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches.
>>
>> I think layers ought to have tags for both ...
>>
>> <layer>-oe-core-<tag>
>> <layer>-yocto-<tag>
> 
> This would be rather sad if it were necessary. The whole point is we're
> trying to build things which are compatible with each other. If that
> turns out not to be the case I want to fix it, not encourage it.

We need a coherent tag name to use across layers. The Yocto Project is
the umbrella project, so using the yocto-project in the tag name is a
good way to show this coordination among projects to people not familiar
with how things are working. (As Koen notes, this makes communication
with people whose primary exposure to the Yocto Project is watching
youtube videos)

I do not want to see table containing Yocto Project release information
and they relate to a set of seemingly random tags in other layers.

Philip

PS: For various reasons, the tag needs to be yocto-project.... not yocto....

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Koen Kooi]

Op 12 apr. 2012, om 21:46 heeft Philip Balister het volgende geschreven:

> On 04/12/2012 11:40 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 14:32 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>>> You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?" questions :)
>>>> 
>>>> Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we actually mean "oe-core".
>>>> 
>>>> Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches.
>>> 
>>> I think layers ought to have tags for both ...
>>> 
>>> <layer>-oe-core-<tag>
>>> <layer>-yocto-<tag>
>> 
>> This would be rather sad if it were necessary. The whole point is we're
>> trying to build things which are compatible with each other. If that
>> turns out not to be the case I want to fix it, not encourage it.
> 
> We need a coherent tag name to use across layers. The Yocto Project is
> the umbrella project, so using the yocto-project in the tag name is a
> good way to show this coordination among projects to people not familiar
> with how things are working. (As Koen notes, this makes communication
> with people whose primary exposure to the Yocto Project is watching
> youtube videos)
> 
> I do not want to see table containing Yocto Project release information
> and they relate to a set of seemingly random tags in other layers.
> 
> Philip
> 
> PS: For various reasons, the tag needs to be yocto-project.... not yocto....

"yoctoproject", without the hyphen to be consistent with the domainname :)

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:57:02PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
> Op 12 apr. 2012, om 21:46 heeft Philip Balister het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On 04/12/2012 11:40 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 14:32 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> >>>> You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?" questions :)
> >>>> 
> >>>> Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we actually mean "oe-core".
> >>>> 
> >>>> Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches.
> >>> 
> >>> I think layers ought to have tags for both ...
> >>> 
> >>> <layer>-oe-core-<tag>
> >>> <layer>-yocto-<tag>
> >> 
> >> This would be rather sad if it were necessary. The whole point is we're
> >> trying to build things which are compatible with each other. If that
> >> turns out not to be the case I want to fix it, not encourage it.
> > 
> > We need a coherent tag name to use across layers. The Yocto Project is
> > the umbrella project, so using the yocto-project in the tag name is a
> > good way to show this coordination among projects to people not familiar
> > with how things are working. (As Koen notes, this makes communication
> > with people whose primary exposure to the Yocto Project is watching
> > youtube videos)
> > 
> > I do not want to see table containing Yocto Project release information
> > and they relate to a set of seemingly random tags in other layers.
> > 
> > Philip
> > 
> > PS: For various reasons, the tag needs to be yocto-project.... not yocto....
> 
> "yoctoproject", without the hyphen to be consistent with the domainname :)

Technically, yocto-project.org is a valid domain name too, as it properly 
redirects to yoctoproject.org and both are registered by the Linux Foundation.

Should we put it to vote? While we still have time before the release, we need 
to agree on the naming eventually.

-- 
Denys

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 18:13, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote:
> Should we put it to vote? While we still have time before the release, we need
> to agree on the naming eventually.

 yp-1.2 +1
 yocto-project-1.2 +1

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Phil Blundell]

On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 17:13 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> Should we put it to vote? While we still have time before the release, we need 
> to agree on the naming eventually.

To be honest, it seems to me like a vote would be a waste of time.  It's
only a name, after all.  This is Richard's project and I think he should
probably just pick a tag name that he likes and be done with it.

p.

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 724 bytes --]

On Apr 13, 2012 12:30 AM, "Phil Blundell" <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 17:13 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > Should we put it to vote? While we still have time before the release,
we need
> > to agree on the naming eventually.
>
> To be honest, it seems to me like a vote would be a waste of time.  It's
> only a name, after all.  This is Richard's project and I think he should
> probably just pick a tag name that he likes and be done with it.
>

One vote for this!

> p.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1079 bytes --]

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Anders Darander]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 21:46, Philip Balister <philip@balister.org> wrote:
> On 04/12/2012 11:40 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 14:32 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>>> You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?" questions :)
>>>>
>>>> Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we actually mean "oe-core".
>>>>
>>>> Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches.
>>>
>>> I think layers ought to have tags for both ...
>>>
>>> <layer>-oe-core-<tag>
>>> <layer>-yocto-<tag>
>>
>> This would be rather sad if it were necessary. The whole point is we're
>> trying to build things which are compatible with each other. If that
>> turns out not to be the case I want to fix it, not encourage it.
>
> We need a coherent tag name to use across layers. The Yocto Project is
> the umbrella project, so using the yocto-project in the tag name is a
> good way to show this coordination among projects to people not familiar
> with how things are working. (As Koen notes, this makes communication
> with people whose primary exposure to the Yocto Project is watching
> youtube videos)

I'm also in favor of a yocto-project-1.2 tag, for the same reason as
Koen and Philip mention. That would make it easier communicating with
customers and PHB's that has heard of Yocto Project...

> I do not want to see table containing Yocto Project release information
> and they relate to a set of seemingly random tags in other layers.

The risk for this is definitely somewhat higher with a strict YYYY-XX
release tag (which also might collide with other projects/layer more
easily). Thus, I'm advocating a 'yocto-project'-prefix for the tags in
question.

/Anders

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Koen Kooi]

Op 12 apr. 2012, om 11:02 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 01:51 +0100, Julian Pidancet wrote:
>> On 04/09/12 19:01, Liu, Song wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> This is to restate and clarify the schedule for Yocto Project 1.2 M4 (milestone 4). If you are concerned or have patches you would like to merge, please see the following dates:
>>> 
>>> 1. RC3 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 8th, 2012, PDT
>>> 2. RC3 build: April 11th, 2012, PDT
>>> 3. RC4 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 15th, 2012, PDT
>>> 4. RC4 build: April 18th, 2012, PDT
>>> 5. YP 1.2 release: April 27th, 2012, PDT
>>> 
>>> You can also check out the schedule here: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?height=600&wkst=1&bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&src=mg0m150m30gs891eqqhtfu5jgg%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%238C500B&src=sc7rov4ck552t2f0pav120t7r0%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%23528800&src=theyoctoproject%40gmail.com&color=%23182C57&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles 
>>> 
>>> Please feel free to let me and Beth know if you have any concerns or questions.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Song
>>> PM, Yocto Project
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I don't see any commits tagged for these milestones in
>> git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core at the moment. Will there be a
>> release tag or a release branch created on the git repository when YP
>> 1.2 comes out, to indicate people that there's a "stable" version of
>> oe-core they can use ?
> 
> Yes, there will be a branch created on OE-Core. 
> 
> At this point the actual branch naming/tagging is a little in flux.
> There was some discussion about this at collaboration summit and the BSP
> summit but there was no conclusion.
> 
> I've tried to write an email on the subject and it basically goes around
> in circles. Ideally we need a scheme which can be used in all the layers
> which doesn't contain numbers as these may conflict with various layer
> schemes. The poky release names at least do that. Ideally people also
> want something sortable with more context such as the year. Doing this
> without numbers is harder.
> 
> I'm reluctant to change the numbering/branch scheme at this point in a
> release as its unfair to release engineering and the documentation
> maintainers.

Any update on this? I'd like to have the angstrom scripts and repositories ready before the end of the week and having some form of agreement on branch/tag naming would be awesome.

regards,

Koen

Yocto Project Branch/Release Naming

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 11:28 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 12 apr. 2012, om 11:02 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> > Yes, there will be a branch created on OE-Core. 
> > 
> > At this point the actual branch naming/tagging is a little in flux.
> > There was some discussion about this at collaboration summit and the BSP
> > summit but there was no conclusion.
> > 
> > I've tried to write an email on the subject and it basically goes around
> > in circles. Ideally we need a scheme which can be used in all the layers
> > which doesn't contain numbers as these may conflict with various layer
> > schemes. The poky release names at least do that. Ideally people also
> > want something sortable with more context such as the year. Doing this
> > without numbers is harder.
> > 
> > I'm reluctant to change the numbering/branch scheme at this point in a
> > release as its unfair to release engineering and the documentation
> > maintainers.
> 
> Any update on this? I'd like to have the angstrom scripts and
> repositories ready before the end of the week and having some form of
> agreement on branch/tag naming would be awesome.

I've been giving this a lot of thought. Whilst I didn't say much in this
thread, I did read it and am considering everything that was said.

The most logical initial choice would be "yocto-project-1.2". I think
that real world use of it would cause several problems though. The
number in the name creates conflict for a start. If you want to release
version X of a BSP/Angstrom/OE-Core/Poky or even bitbake, figuring out
the relationship between 1.2 and the local release numbering is hard and
confusing. I don't really want to impose a unified numbering system with
the Yocto Project, particularly as many components have numbering
systems already.

I'm already conscious of the "When will there be a Yocto Project 2.0"
and I think these numbering schemes are artificial for that reason.
Also, Yocto Project is a trademark and I know there are discussions
going on at the moment about how/when it should be used and so on. I
can't imagine there being a problem in this area but we should really
let those discussions conclude which they have not as yet.

Finally, I think its unfair to pull the rug out from under release
engineering by changing things at this stage of a release.

So, I therefore want to continue to use codenames for the release
branches and this release will be "denzil".

The main downside to these codenames is the lack of sorting which I'm
going to categorize as unfortunate.

It therefore follows based off my comment above that tags will continue
to use the version scheme used by the specific projects. 

I am going to encourage "denzil" branches in repositories to show
compatibility and strongly recommend to the OE TSC that we have a denzil
branch in the OE-Core repository instead of 2012-1. Bitbake is the one
exception I'd make to the denzil branch naming scheme, not least as its
supposed to be backwards compatible and work anywhere so the branch
naming applies to metadata and not bitbake.

We can tag OE-Core as 2012-1 if so desired although I am starting to
dislike that version scheme for its bad handling of point releases (it
looks like a date). I guess that is a discussion for the next TSC
meeting.

So we have a decision, I'm not sure everyone will love this but such is
life.

Cheers,

Richard

Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule

[Liu, Song]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 943 bytes --]

Hi all,

This is to restate and clarify the schedule for Yocto Project 1.2 M4 (milestone 4). If you are concerned or have patches you would like to merge, please see the following dates:


1.       RC3 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 8th, 2012, PDT

2.       RC3 build: April 11th, 2012, PDT

3.       RC4 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 15th, 2012, PDT

4.       RC4 build: April 18th, 2012, PDT

5.       YP 1.2 release: April 27th, 2012, PDT

You can also check out the schedule here: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?height=600&wkst=1&bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&src=mg0m150m30gs891eqqhtfu5jgg%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%238C500B&src=sc7rov4ck552t2f0pav120t7r0%40group.calendar.google.com&color=%23528800&src=theyoctoproject%40gmail.com&color=%23182C57&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles

Please feel free to let me and Beth know if you have any concerns or questions.

Thanks!
Song
PM, Yocto Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5211 bytes --]