* Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status @ 2012-04-18 14:47 Richard Purdie 2012-04-18 14:51 ` Koen Kooi 2012-04-18 14:53 ` Martin Jansa 0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yocto, openembedded-core I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make a call on how things are looking. If people don't have 1.2 issues to work on, I'd like people to start looking at the bugs marked as 1.2.1. The reasoning here is simple, if we do have to go to a -rc5 and the fixes are good enough, they might make it into 1.2 (but no promises). We need to fix these issues in master and for any 1.2.1 release anyway. I'd prefer people not to start working on new features at this point but concentrate on improving the quality of the release and fixing bugs. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status 2012-04-18 14:47 Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 14:51 ` Koen Kooi 2012-04-18 14:53 ` Martin Jansa 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Koen Kooi @ 2012-04-18 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Op 18 apr. 2012, om 16:47 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. > > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make > a call on how things are looking. > > If people don't have 1.2 issues to work on, I'd like people to start > looking at the bugs marked as 1.2.1. The reasoning here is simple, if we > do have to go to a -rc5 and the fixes are good enough, they might make > it into 1.2 (but no promises). We need to fix these issues in master and > for any 1.2.1 release anyway. I'd prefer people not to start working on > new features at this point but concentrate on improving the quality of > the release and fixing bugs. "The denzil is in the details" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status 2012-04-18 14:47 Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 14:53 ` Martin Jansa 2012-04-18 14:53 ` Martin Jansa 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Martin Jansa @ 2012-04-18 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1565 bytes --] On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. > > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make > a call on how things are looking. Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those 1.2.1 fixes)? > If people don't have 1.2 issues to work on, I'd like people to start > looking at the bugs marked as 1.2.1. The reasoning here is simple, if we > do have to go to a -rc5 and the fixes are good enough, they might make > it into 1.2 (but no promises). We need to fix these issues in master and > for any 1.2.1 release anyway. I'd prefer people not to start working on > new features at this point but concentrate on improving the quality of > the release and fixing bugs. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status @ 2012-04-18 14:53 ` Martin Jansa 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Martin Jansa @ 2012-04-18 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1565 bytes --] On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. > > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make > a call on how things are looking. Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those 1.2.1 fixes)? > If people don't have 1.2 issues to work on, I'd like people to start > looking at the bugs marked as 1.2.1. The reasoning here is simple, if we > do have to go to a -rc5 and the fixes are good enough, they might make > it into 1.2 (but no promises). We need to fix these issues in master and > for any 1.2.1 release anyway. I'd prefer people not to start working on > new features at this point but concentrate on improving the quality of > the release and fixing bugs. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status 2012-04-18 14:53 ` Martin Jansa @ 2012-04-18 15:20 ` Richard Purdie -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. > > > > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot > > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs > > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. > > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. > > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make > > a call on how things are looking. > > Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for > postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master > as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those > 1.2.1 fixes)? I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master rolling again at some point relatively soon. It won't happen immediately as the 1.2 release is building which means I have no resources to test master right now so I will hold off until those are available. To be honest at a personal level, I'm also pretty worn out after the past couple of weeks of bug fixing, triage and review and would ideally like to disappear for a couple of weeks. Realistically this isn't going to happen now but maybe in a few weeks... Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status @ 2012-04-18 15:20 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. > > > > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot > > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs > > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. > > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. > > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make > > a call on how things are looking. > > Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for > postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master > as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those > 1.2.1 fixes)? I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master rolling again at some point relatively soon. It won't happen immediately as the 1.2 release is building which means I have no resources to test master right now so I will hold off until those are available. To be honest at a personal level, I'm also pretty worn out after the past couple of weeks of bug fixing, triage and review and would ideally like to disappear for a couple of weeks. Realistically this isn't going to happen now but maybe in a few weeks... Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status 2012-04-18 15:20 ` Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 15:56 ` Darren Hart -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Darren Hart @ 2012-04-18 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On 04/18/2012 08:20 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. >>> >>> I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot >>> of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs >>> there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. >>> These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. >>> Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make >>> a call on how things are looking. >> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those >> 1.2.1 fixes)? > > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master > rolling again at some point relatively soon. > > It won't happen immediately as the 1.2 release is building which means I > have no resources to test master right now so I will hold off until > those are available. > > To be honest at a personal level, I'm also pretty worn out after the > past couple of weeks of bug fixing, triage and review and would ideally > like to disappear for a couple of weeks. Realistically this isn't going > to happen now but maybe in a few weeks... > I think I'll be proposing a forced vacation policy for RP which includes temporarily locking out his user id on all yoctoproject resources.... -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status @ 2012-04-18 15:56 ` Darren Hart 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Darren Hart @ 2012-04-18 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On 04/18/2012 08:20 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. >>> >>> I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot >>> of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs >>> there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. >>> These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. >>> Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make >>> a call on how things are looking. >> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those >> 1.2.1 fixes)? > > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master > rolling again at some point relatively soon. > > It won't happen immediately as the 1.2 release is building which means I > have no resources to test master right now so I will hold off until > those are available. > > To be honest at a personal level, I'm also pretty worn out after the > past couple of weeks of bug fixing, triage and review and would ideally > like to disappear for a couple of weeks. Realistically this isn't going > to happen now but maybe in a few weeks... > I think I'll be proposing a forced vacation policy for RP which includes temporarily locking out his user id on all yoctoproject resources.... -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status 2012-04-18 15:20 ` Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 16:22 ` Chris Larson -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Chris Larson @ 2012-04-18 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. >> > >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make >> > a call on how things are looking. >> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those >> 1.2.1 fixes)? > > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master > rolling again at some point relatively soon. Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete local changes to get upstream.. -- Christopher Larson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status @ 2012-04-18 16:22 ` Chris Larson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Chris Larson @ 2012-04-18 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. >> > >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make >> > a call on how things are looking. >> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those >> 1.2.1 fixes)? > > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master > rolling again at some point relatively soon. Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete local changes to get upstream.. -- Christopher Larson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status 2012-04-18 16:22 ` Chris Larson @ 2012-04-18 17:02 ` Richard Purdie -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. > >> > > >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot > >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs > >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. > >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. > >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make > >> > a call on how things are looking. > >> > >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for > >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master > >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those > >> 1.2.1 fixes)? > > > > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but > > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master > > rolling again at some point relatively soon. > > Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which > aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything > but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything > being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm > sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete > local changes to get upstream.. So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a queue of bugfixes which they've not shared? This doesn't help us much with the quality of this release :/ At least the next one might benefit I guess assuming you can resolve that backlog problem... Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status @ 2012-04-18 17:02 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. > >> > > >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot > >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs > >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. > >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. > >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make > >> > a call on how things are looking. > >> > >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for > >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master > >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those > >> 1.2.1 fixes)? > > > > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but > > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master > > rolling again at some point relatively soon. > > Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which > aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything > but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything > being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm > sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete > local changes to get upstream.. So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a queue of bugfixes which they've not shared? This doesn't help us much with the quality of this release :/ At least the next one might benefit I guess assuming you can resolve that backlog problem... Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status 2012-04-18 17:02 ` Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 17:06 ` Chris Larson -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Chris Larson @ 2012-04-18 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie >> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >> >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. >> >> > >> >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot >> >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs >> >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. >> >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. >> >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make >> >> > a call on how things are looking. >> >> >> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for >> >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master >> >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those >> >> 1.2.1 fixes)? >> > >> > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but >> > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master >> > rolling again at some point relatively soon. >> >> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which >> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything >> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything >> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm >> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete >> local changes to get upstream.. > > So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a > queue of bugfixes which they've not shared? No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially if they're critical, no? > This doesn't help us much with the quality of this release :/ At least > the next one might benefit I guess assuming you can resolve that backlog > problem... Imagining that every company is going to never have changes that are not yet upstream is a pipe dream. There's often a delay due to time constraints and scheduling. Welcome to the real world. -- Christopher Larson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status @ 2012-04-18 17:06 ` Chris Larson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Chris Larson @ 2012-04-18 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie >> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >> >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. >> >> > >> >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot >> >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs >> >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. >> >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. >> >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make >> >> > a call on how things are looking. >> >> >> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for >> >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master >> >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those >> >> 1.2.1 fixes)? >> > >> > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but >> > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master >> > rolling again at some point relatively soon. >> >> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which >> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything >> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything >> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm >> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete >> local changes to get upstream.. > > So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a > queue of bugfixes which they've not shared? No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially if they're critical, no? > This doesn't help us much with the quality of this release :/ At least > the next one might benefit I guess assuming you can resolve that backlog > problem... Imagining that every company is going to never have changes that are not yet upstream is a pipe dream. There's often a delay due to time constraints and scheduling. Welcome to the real world. -- Christopher Larson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status 2012-04-18 17:06 ` Chris Larson @ 2012-04-18 17:11 ` Chris Larson -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Chris Larson @ 2012-04-18 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie >>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >>> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. >>> >> > >>> >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot >>> >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs >>> >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. >>> >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. >>> >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make >>> >> > a call on how things are looking. >>> >> >>> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for >>> >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master >>> >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those >>> >> 1.2.1 fixes)? >>> > >>> > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but >>> > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master >>> > rolling again at some point relatively soon. >>> >>> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which >>> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything >>> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything >>> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm >>> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete >>> local changes to get upstream.. >> >> So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a >> queue of bugfixes which they've not shared? > > No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact > bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially > if they're critical, no? Further, again you're ignoring previous work. Whether we've been working on stabilization right now is irrelevent given we have previous work to push. Mentor has been using OE for its products for years, to expect that a very small team which has to focus on customer issues is going to catch up on all of that effort in a short period of time is unreasonable. We've been working against our backlog for months, and will continue to do so until we're caught up. The frozen tree just slows that down even more. If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current development effort. -- Christopher Larson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status @ 2012-04-18 17:11 ` Chris Larson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Chris Larson @ 2012-04-18 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie >>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >>> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status. >>> >> > >>> >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot >>> >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs >>> >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened. >>> >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen. >>> >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make >>> >> > a call on how things are looking. >>> >> >>> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for >>> >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master >>> >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those >>> >> 1.2.1 fixes)? >>> > >>> > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but >>> > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master >>> > rolling again at some point relatively soon. >>> >>> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which >>> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything >>> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything >>> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm >>> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete >>> local changes to get upstream.. >> >> So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a >> queue of bugfixes which they've not shared? > > No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact > bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially > if they're critical, no? Further, again you're ignoring previous work. Whether we've been working on stabilization right now is irrelevent given we have previous work to push. Mentor has been using OE for its products for years, to expect that a very small team which has to focus on customer issues is going to catch up on all of that effort in a short period of time is unreasonable. We've been working against our backlog for months, and will continue to do so until we're caught up. The frozen tree just slows that down even more. If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current development effort. -- Christopher Larson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status 2012-04-18 17:11 ` Chris Larson @ 2012-04-18 17:16 ` Otavio Salvador -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2012-04-18 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 14:11, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote: .. > If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you > have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which > aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your > implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization > efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current > development effort. .. In fact if Yocto had something like Linux merge window and smaller development releases with some time for bugfix only would allow for a generally stable tree bug with a flow of new features comming all the 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status @ 2012-04-18 17:16 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2012-04-18 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 14:11, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote: .. > If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you > have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which > aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your > implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization > efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current > development effort. .. In fact if Yocto had something like Linux merge window and smaller development releases with some time for bugfix only would allow for a generally stable tree bug with a flow of new features comming all the 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status 2012-04-18 17:11 ` Chris Larson @ 2012-04-18 18:56 ` Richard Purdie -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 10:11 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie > > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie > >>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >>> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > >>> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which > >>> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything > >>> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything > >>> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm > >>> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete > >>> local changes to get upstream.. > >> > >> So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a > >> queue of bugfixes which they've not shared? > > > > No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact > > bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially > > if they're critical, no? They would have had a shot until very recently, yes. I'm hoping we're about done with the release at this point as a line has to be drawn somewhere and I think now is it. > Further, again you're ignoring previous work. Whether we've been > working on stabilization right now is irrelevent given we have > previous work to push. Mentor has been using OE for its products for > years, to expect that a very small team which has to focus on customer > issues is going to catch up on all of that effort in a short period of > time is unreasonable. We've been working against our backlog for > months, and will continue to do so until we're caught up. The frozen > tree just slows that down even more. > > If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you > have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which > aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your > implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization > efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current > development effort. Let me be clear, nothing I said is meant as a criticism as we all have constraints to work within, me included and I'm familiar with the problem. In the Mentor case I can feel some sympathy as I remember ELC-E 2007 where Embedded Alley presented about OE. I was sitting next to Holger in the audience and they announced major improvements to BitBake. This was somewhat of a surprise to the BitBake developers sitting there and I went and asked where the patches were. I'm not sure we ever did get them. I can therefore imagine some of the backlog you speak of. I know this is going to change and get better in future, we need to work through the backlog and that will take time on all sides. Every partner in the project has some issues they are working through in one form or another be it backlog, transition or otherwise. Posting non-bugfixes is fine at the moment as long as people have a reasonable expectation about the fact they won't merge immediately. I appreciate you understand that, equally there are others on this mailing list who don't and I do have to keep mentioning it for that reason :(. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status @ 2012-04-18 18:56 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-04-18 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: yocto On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 10:11 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie > > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie > >>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >>> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > >>> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which > >>> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything > >>> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything > >>> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm > >>> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete > >>> local changes to get upstream.. > >> > >> So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a > >> queue of bugfixes which they've not shared? > > > > No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact > > bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially > > if they're critical, no? They would have had a shot until very recently, yes. I'm hoping we're about done with the release at this point as a line has to be drawn somewhere and I think now is it. > Further, again you're ignoring previous work. Whether we've been > working on stabilization right now is irrelevent given we have > previous work to push. Mentor has been using OE for its products for > years, to expect that a very small team which has to focus on customer > issues is going to catch up on all of that effort in a short period of > time is unreasonable. We've been working against our backlog for > months, and will continue to do so until we're caught up. The frozen > tree just slows that down even more. > > If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you > have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which > aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your > implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization > efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current > development effort. Let me be clear, nothing I said is meant as a criticism as we all have constraints to work within, me included and I'm familiar with the problem. In the Mentor case I can feel some sympathy as I remember ELC-E 2007 where Embedded Alley presented about OE. I was sitting next to Holger in the audience and they announced major improvements to BitBake. This was somewhat of a surprise to the BitBake developers sitting there and I went and asked where the patches were. I'm not sure we ever did get them. I can therefore imagine some of the backlog you speak of. I know this is going to change and get better in future, we need to work through the backlog and that will take time on all sides. Every partner in the project has some issues they are working through in one form or another be it backlog, transition or otherwise. Posting non-bugfixes is fine at the moment as long as people have a reasonable expectation about the fact they won't merge immediately. I appreciate you understand that, equally there are others on this mailing list who don't and I do have to keep mentioning it for that reason :(. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-04-18 19:06 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-04-18 14:47 Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status Richard Purdie 2012-04-18 14:51 ` Koen Kooi 2012-04-18 14:53 ` [OE-core] " Martin Jansa 2012-04-18 14:53 ` Martin Jansa 2012-04-18 15:20 ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie 2012-04-18 15:20 ` Richard Purdie 2012-04-18 15:56 ` [OE-core] " Darren Hart 2012-04-18 15:56 ` Darren Hart 2012-04-18 16:22 ` [OE-core] " Chris Larson 2012-04-18 16:22 ` Chris Larson 2012-04-18 17:02 ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie 2012-04-18 17:02 ` Richard Purdie 2012-04-18 17:06 ` [OE-core] " Chris Larson 2012-04-18 17:06 ` Chris Larson 2012-04-18 17:11 ` [OE-core] " Chris Larson 2012-04-18 17:11 ` Chris Larson 2012-04-18 17:16 ` [OE-core] " Otavio Salvador 2012-04-18 17:16 ` Otavio Salvador 2012-04-18 18:56 ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie 2012-04-18 18:56 ` Richard Purdie
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.