Re: [Openembedded-architecture] proposal: allow Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream in patches

Re: [Openembedded-architecture] proposal: allow Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream in patches

[Michael Opdenacker]

Hi Richard,

CCing the docs@ mailing list on this part of the thread.

On 12/9/21 6:05 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-12-09 at 15:48 +0100, Konrad Weihmann wrote:
>> I support that idea.
>>
>> as said in the other ML conversation the format should look like
>>
>> Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream [<last release date>(, <last commit 
>> date>)]
>>
>> with the part in the ()-brackets being opinion, as we mainly aim for 
>> using releases anyway.
>> This time I would actually have it as much machine readable as possible, 
>> so it might be suitable to dictate a yyyymmdd date format pattern here.
> I'm in favour of adding the new category and I agree some kind of dates in the
> [reason] space would be nice to have.
>
> For the purposes of a patch upstream, the last commit date is much more
> important than a release. I don't think this needs to be machine readable as a
> definition, it is better we have the appropriate info. Year is probably as much
> as we need since inactive software is usually measured in years.
>
> We may need to put some kind of guide in the docs about what "inactive" looks
> like.


Are you suggesting to expand the official Yocto Project docs on this topic?
Actually, I only see
https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev-manual/common-tasks.html#patching-code
which explains the use of patches. There is much more content indeed in
https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines

Cheers
Michael.

-- 
Michael Opdenacker, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [docs] [Openembedded-architecture] proposal: allow Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream in patches

[Alexander Kanavin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 532 bytes --]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 11:30, Michael Opdenacker <
michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Are you suggesting to expand the official Yocto Project docs on this topic?
> Actually, I only see
> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev-manual/common-tasks.html#patching-code
> which explains the use of patches. There is much more content indeed in
> https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
>

I would suggest you link to the wiki, but please do not copy any content,
as it will certainly become mismatched.

Alex

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1115 bytes --]

Re: [docs] [Openembedded-architecture] proposal: allow Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream in patches

[Ross Burton]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 10:38, Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 11:30, Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> Are you suggesting to expand the official Yocto Project docs on this topic?
>> Actually, I only see
>> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev-manual/common-tasks.html#patching-code
>> which explains the use of patches. There is much more content indeed in
>> https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
>
>
> I would suggest you link to the wiki, but please do not copy any content, as it will certainly become mismatched.

I'd actually suggest the proper documentation is improved, and the
wiki page retired.  Wikis are great for getting something written
down, but if the proper documentation can have a chapter, then that's
even better.

Ross

Re: [docs] [Openembedded-architecture] proposal: allow Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream in patches

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2021-12-14 at 11:27 +0000, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 10:38, Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 11:30, Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Are you suggesting to expand the official Yocto Project docs on this topic?
> > > Actually, I only see
> > > https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev-manual/common-tasks.html#patching-code
> > > which explains the use of patches. There is much more content indeed in
> > > https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
> > 
> > 
> > I would suggest you link to the wiki, but please do not copy any content, as it will certainly become mismatched.
> 
> I'd actually suggest the proper documentation is improved, and the
> wiki page retired.  Wikis are great for getting something written
> down, but if the proper documentation can have a chapter, then that's
> even better.

I was thinking something similar, I think we should document this in the proper
documentation and then the wiki can refer to it. Wikis are good to a point and
great at pulling info together but not a substitute for the docs.

Cheers,

Richard