Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Saul Wold]

We finally did it!

After getting some final patches yesterday, we made it to 100% with 
patch Upsteam-Status.

Total Patches Files: 1243
All Upstream-Status: 1243
Fix Upstream-Status: 0
Need Upstream-Status: 0
Pending Upstream-Status: 461

This means we have 461 patches to now work their way into the Upstream
communities.

Let's work to maintain this, I will be watching incoming patches and 
using a check script to verify that patches have Upstream-Status.

Thanks to all those people who worked to get Upstream-Status into their 
patches.

Sau!

Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Saul Wold]

We finally did it!

After getting some final patches yesterday, we made it to 100% with 
patch Upsteam-Status.

Total Patches Files: 1243
All Upstream-Status: 1243
Fix Upstream-Status: 0
Need Upstream-Status: 0
Pending Upstream-Status: 461

This means we have 461 patches to now work their way into the Upstream
communities.

Let's work to maintain this, I will be watching incoming patches and 
using a check script to verify that patches have Upstream-Status.

Thanks to all those people who worked to get Upstream-Status into their 
patches.

Sau!

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Björn Stenberg]

Saul Wold wrote:
> After getting some final patches yesterday, we made it to 100% with
> patch Upsteam-Status.

Who sets the Upstream-Status? Are there guidelines how to do it?

I spoke to the author of curl and mentioned the two patches in Yocto against it, both of which are marked as "Upstream-Status: Inappropriate". He said those patches were never submitted to him.

Are we dismissing patches without even giving upstream a chance to comment?

-- 
Björn

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Stewart, David C]

> From: Saul Wold [mailto:saul.wold@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:12 AM
> 
> We finally did it!
> 
> After getting some final patches yesterday, we made it to 100% with patch
> Upsteam-Status.
> 
> Total Patches Files: 1243
> All Upstream-Status: 1243
> Fix Upstream-Status: 0
> Need Upstream-Status: 0
> Pending Upstream-Status: 461
> 
> This means we have 461 patches to now work their way into the Upstream
> communities.
> 
> Let's work to maintain this, I will be watching incoming patches and using a
> check script to verify that patches have Upstream-Status.
> 
> Thanks to all those people who worked to get Upstream-Status into their
> patches.

Nicely done, all!  I'm hoping we have can a reputation as a strong supporter of upstream projects, giving back wherever we can.

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Osier-mixon, Jeffrey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1425 bytes --]

This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100% of? Do we
have no local patches to upstream projects at all?

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Stewart, David C
<david.c.stewart@intel.com>wrote:

> > From: Saul Wold [mailto:saul.wold@intel.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:12 AM
> >
> > We finally did it!
> >
> > After getting some final patches yesterday, we made it to 100% with patch
> > Upsteam-Status.
> >
> > Total Patches Files: 1243
> > All Upstream-Status: 1243
> > Fix Upstream-Status: 0
> > Need Upstream-Status: 0
> > Pending Upstream-Status: 461
> >
> > This means we have 461 patches to now work their way into the Upstream
> > communities.
> >
> > Let's work to maintain this, I will be watching incoming patches and
> using a
> > check script to verify that patches have Upstream-Status.
> >
> > Thanks to all those people who worked to get Upstream-Status into their
> > patches.
>
> Nicely done, all!  I'm hoping we have can a reputation as a strong
> supporter of upstream projects, giving back wherever we can.
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>



-- 
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2164 bytes --]

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Paul Eggleton]

On Wednesday 08 February 2012 09:34:56 Osier-mixon, Jeffrey wrote:
> This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
> reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100% of? Do we
> have no local patches to upstream projects at all?

Not quite - we still have most of the patches, it's just we've now declared on 
each and every one whether it can be/has been upstreamed.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [yocto] Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Paul Eggleton]

On Wednesday 08 February 2012 09:34:56 Osier-mixon, Jeffrey wrote:
> This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
> reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100% of? Do we
> have no local patches to upstream projects at all?

Not quite - we still have most of the patches, it's just we've now declared on 
each and every one whether it can be/has been upstreamed.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey
<jeffrey.osier-mixon@intel.com> wrote:
> This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
> reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100% of? Do we
> have no local patches to upstream projects at all?

it means that all patches have a field 'Upstream-Status'
and for most of them it reflects the status of patch w.r.t. upstream
of given package

Re: [yocto] Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey
<jeffrey.osier-mixon@intel.com> wrote:
> This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
> reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100% of? Do we
> have no local patches to upstream projects at all?

it means that all patches have a field 'Upstream-Status'
and for most of them it reflects the status of patch w.r.t. upstream
of given package

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Osier-mixon, Jeffrey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 685 bytes --]

Ah, documentation :)  excellent

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey
> <jeffrey.osier-mixon@intel.com> wrote:
> > This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
> > reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100% of? Do we
> > have no local patches to upstream projects at all?
>
> it means that all patches have a field 'Upstream-Status'
> and for most of them it reflects the status of patch w.r.t. upstream
> of given package
>



-- 
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1175 bytes --]

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Saul Wold]

On 02/08/2012 10:04 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey wrote:
> Ah, documentation :)  excellent
>

Jefro:

You can get more info about this from Mark's OE page:
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines

The Key thing to note on my numbers is that we have 461 patches that 
could potentially be up-streamed to other communities, depending the 
status of those communities, from active communities accepting patches 
to upstream source that is just download-able with no activity or 
maintainers.

We have 1243 patches overall, which include OE Specific configuration 
patches and Embedded specific tweaks to various upstreams that may not 
be appropriate or acceptable to the upstream community.

Sau!




> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com
> <mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey
>     <jeffrey.osier-mixon@intel.com
>     <mailto:jeffrey.osier-mixon@intel.com>> wrote:
>      > This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
>      > reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100%
>     of? Do we
>      > have no local patches to upstream projects at all?
>
>     it means that all patches have a field 'Upstream-Status'
>     and for most of them it reflects the status of patch w.r.t. upstream
>     of given package
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
> Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org
> <http://yoctoproject.org/>
>

Re: [yocto] Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Saul Wold]

On 02/08/2012 10:04 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey wrote:
> Ah, documentation :)  excellent
>

Jefro:

You can get more info about this from Mark's OE page:
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines

The Key thing to note on my numbers is that we have 461 patches that 
could potentially be up-streamed to other communities, depending the 
status of those communities, from active communities accepting patches 
to upstream source that is just download-able with no activity or 
maintainers.

We have 1243 patches overall, which include OE Specific configuration 
patches and Embedded specific tweaks to various upstreams that may not 
be appropriate or acceptable to the upstream community.

Sau!




> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com
> <mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey
>     <jeffrey.osier-mixon@intel.com
>     <mailto:jeffrey.osier-mixon@intel.com>> wrote:
>      > This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
>      > reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100%
>     of? Do we
>      > have no local patches to upstream projects at all?
>
>     it means that all patches have a field 'Upstream-Status'
>     and for most of them it reflects the status of patch w.r.t. upstream
>     of given package
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
> Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org
> <http://yoctoproject.org/>
>

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Saul Wold]

On 02/08/2012 02:07 AM, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Saul Wold wrote:
>> After getting some final patches yesterday, we made it to 100% with
>> patch Upsteam-Status.
>
> Who sets the Upstream-Status? Are there guidelines how to do it?
>
The developer of the patch submitted to any OE branch (oe-core, meta-oe, 
...) should add the appropriate Upstream-Status entry.

See: http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines

We had a big push within the OE-Core team to try and determine if 
patches are appropriate for upstream or not.

> I spoke to the author of curl and mentioned the two patches in Yocto against it, both of which are marked as "Upstream-Status: Inappropriate". He said those patches were never submitted to him.
>
> Are we dismissing patches without even giving upstream a chance to comment?

In some cases yes we might be doing that, particularly patches that 
seemed to be specific to the OE cross compilation environment or to deal 
with packaging with in the embedded space where marked as Inappropriate. 
  Once we get though round one of the obvious potential upstream-able 
patches we can revisit other.

If the author of curl would like to review and/or implement modification 
for OE that would be awesome, feel free to share the patches with them.

Sau!

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Björn Stenberg <bjst@enea.com> wrote:
> Who sets the Upstream-Status? Are there guidelines how to do it?
>

patch author importer whoever brings this patch in into oe. Sometimes
there might be judgement error on patches
thats why I said "for most of them it reflects the status of patch
w.r.t. upstream"

> I spoke to the author of curl and mentioned the two patches in Yocto against it, both of which are marked as "Upstream-Status: Inappropriate". He said those patches were never submitted to him.
>
> Are we dismissing patches without even giving upstream a chance to comment?

Thats not the intention at all. All patches should go upstream from
OE's POV it would be cool to have 0 patches locally
If someone had better insights into patches and submit more
appropriate analysis of patches thats welcome
all the time.

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Daniel Stenberg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 849 bytes --]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote:

> If the author of curl would like to review and/or implement modification for 
> OE that would be awesome, feel free to share the patches with them.

I am the maintainer of curl.

The curl patches Björn mentioned are clearly not written in way intended to be 
"upstreamable" so they cannot be accepted by the curl project and nobody has 
tried to.

This said, at least one of the patches fixes a problem that still exists 
upstream but the yocto patch [*] is made in such a hard-coded way it'd have to 
be seriously edited to get accepted. The flaw has not even been discussed with 
or mentioned to the curl project AFAICR...

So, room for improvements!

[*] = http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/recipes-support/curl/curl/noldlibpath.patch

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote:
>
>> If the author of curl would like to review and/or implement modification
>> for OE that would be awesome, feel free to share the patches with them.
>
>
> I am the maintainer of curl.
>
> The curl patches Björn mentioned are clearly not written in way intended to
> be "upstreamable" so they cannot be accepted by the curl project and nobody
> has tried to.
>
> This said, at least one of the patches fixes a problem that still exists
> upstream but the yocto patch [*] is made in such a hard-coded way it'd have
> to be seriously edited to get accepted. The flaw has not even been discussed
> with or mentioned to the curl project AFAICR...
>
> So, room for improvements!

We understand the lack of upstreaming hence the process of documenting
the patches with Upstream-Status
was put in place. So step by step we are getting there where we will
be able to interact with upstream projects
on the patches we carry. The first step it to account for them which
we did. Next step
would be to interact with respective upstream projects and propose the
patches or describe
the problems if they are to be fixed differently.

-Khem

Re: [OE-core] Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Paul Menzel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1157 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, den 08.02.2012, 10:45 -0800 schrieb Saul Wold:
> On 02/08/2012 10:04 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey wrote:
> > Ah, documentation :)  excellent

Saul, thank you for the update and enforcing that requirement from the
commit and patch message guidelines.

> Jefro:
> 
> You can get more info about this from Mark's OE page:
> http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
> 
> The Key thing to note on my numbers is that we have 461 patches that 
> could potentially be up-streamed to other communities, depending the 
> status of those communities, from active communities accepting patches 
> to upstream source that is just download-able with no activity or 
> maintainers.

Emphasis should be laid on *could*. Sending these patches upstream still
has to be done most of the time and most developers do not spend time
with that. I hope that will improve in the future somehow.

> We have 1243 patches overall, which include OE Specific configuration 
> patches and Embedded specific tweaks to various upstreams that may not 
> be appropriate or acceptable to the upstream community.



Thanks,

Paul

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Paul Menzel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1157 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, den 08.02.2012, 10:45 -0800 schrieb Saul Wold:
> On 02/08/2012 10:04 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey wrote:
> > Ah, documentation :)  excellent

Saul, thank you for the update and enforcing that requirement from the
commit and patch message guidelines.

> Jefro:
> 
> You can get more info about this from Mark's OE page:
> http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
> 
> The Key thing to note on my numbers is that we have 461 patches that 
> could potentially be up-streamed to other communities, depending the 
> status of those communities, from active communities accepting patches 
> to upstream source that is just download-able with no activity or 
> maintainers.

Emphasis should be laid on *could*. Sending these patches upstream still
has to be done most of the time and most developers do not spend time
with that. I hope that will improve in the future somehow.

> We have 1243 patches overall, which include OE Specific configuration 
> patches and Embedded specific tweaks to various upstreams that may not 
> be appropriate or acceptable to the upstream community.



Thanks,

Paul

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Saul Wold]

On 02/08/2012 01:26 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote:
>
>> If the author of curl would like to review and/or implement
>> modification for OE that would be awesome, feel free to share the
>> patches with them.
>
> I am the maintainer of curl.
>
> The curl patches Björn mentioned are clearly not written in way intended
> to be "upstreamable" so they cannot be accepted by the curl project and
> nobody has tried to.
>
I am sure there are many patches like that in OE, they are written, 
tested and then forgotten about, our goal here is to not let them get 
forgotten.

> This said, at least one of the patches fixes a problem that still exists
> upstream but the yocto patch [*] is made in such a hard-coded way it'd
> have to be seriously edited to get accepted. The flaw has not even been
> discussed with or mentioned to the curl project AFAICR...
>
> So, room for improvements!
>
> [*] =
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/recipes-support/curl/curl/noldlibpath.patch
>
>

Daniel,

I think Khem has already said that we are taking incremental steps here, 
as I mentioned in my prior email, we have over 1200 patches lurking 
around in OE currently, initially we have about 460 as marked as pending.

If you can fix those issues, since we can't address all of them 
initially or be experts in all upstreams, we would be very grateful to 
remove 1 or 2 more patches.

Thanks for your understanding.

Sau!

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Daniel Stenberg]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote:

> If you can fix those issues, since we can't address all of them initially or 
> be experts in all upstreams, we would be very grateful to remove 1 or 2 more 
> patches.

Yes, I started looking into that.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Koen Kooi]

Op 9 feb. 2012, om 00:18 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:

> On 02/08/2012 01:26 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote:
>> 
>>> If the author of curl would like to review and/or implement
>>> modification for OE that would be awesome, feel free to share the
>>> patches with them.
>> 
>> I am the maintainer of curl.
>> 
>> The curl patches Björn mentioned are clearly not written in way intended
>> to be "upstreamable" so they cannot be accepted by the curl project and
>> nobody has tried to.
>> 
> I am sure there are many patches like that in OE, they are written, tested and then forgotten about, our goal here is to not let them get forgotten.
> 
>> This said, at least one of the patches fixes a problem that still exists
>> upstream but the yocto patch [*] is made in such a hard-coded way it'd
>> have to be seriously edited to get accepted. The flaw has not even been
>> discussed with or mentioned to the curl project AFAICR...
>> 
>> So, room for improvements!
>> 
>> [*] =
>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/recipes-support/curl/curl/noldlibpath.patch
>> 
>> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> I think Khem has already said that we are taking incremental steps here, as I mentioned in my prior email, we have over 1200 patches lurking around in OE currently, initially we have about 460 as marked as pending.

I find the 'pending' confusing, is it 'pending submission' or 'pending approval'? I'm marking patches in meta-oe with 'Upstream-status: Unknown' as default instead of 'Pending' to make it a bit clearer. And patches marked 'inappropriate' won't go in, it's 'rejected', 'unknown' or 'needs work' in those cases. I'm not going to guess what upstream might think of it, since I can't speak for them.

All patches in OE-core now have an Upstream-status, but how many have an *incorrect* Upstream-status? I suspect only a small percentage, but I think it's worth rethinking the lingo used to be clearer to non-native speakers like me.

regards,

Koen

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Paul Eggleton]

On Thursday 09 February 2012 13:22:10 Koen Kooi wrote:
> I find the 'pending' confusing, is it 'pending submission' or 'pending
> approval'? I'm marking patches in meta-oe with 'Upstream-status: Unknown'
> as default instead of 'Pending' to make it a bit clearer. And patches
> marked 'inappropriate' won't go in, it's 'rejected', 'unknown' or 'needs
> work' in those cases. I'm not going to guess what upstream might think of
> it, since I can't speak for them.

I think the distinction between Pending and Unknown is important. The status 
is not completely unknown - the person who set it made an assessment that the 
patch should be appropriate for sending upstream, even if it would need 
further cleanup beforehand. Maybe "Pending" isn't the best word, I'm not sure, 
but "Unknown" is not right either.

> All patches in OE-core now have an Upstream-status, but how many have an
> *incorrect* Upstream-status?

The status ought to be correct with regard to the patch author's assessment of 
whether or not the patch can go upstream. That's what matters - it's a tool 
you can use in the separate exercise of going through the patches we do have 
and trying to get them merged upstream.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Khem Raj]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@beagleboard.org> wrote:
>
> I find the 'pending' confusing, is it 'pending submission' or 'pending approval'? I'm marking patches in meta-oe with 'Upstream-status: Unknown' as default instead of 'Pending' to make it a bit clearer. And patches marked 'inappropriate' won't go in, it's 'rejected', 'unknown' or 'needs work' in those cases. I'm not going to guess what upstream might think of it, since I can't speak for them.
>

there I have seen 'Pending' and 'Submitted' and 'Accepted' which may
be not best wording but explains the status of where the patch is.
Here I think Pending means Pending submission. Umknown would be too
vague.

> All patches in OE-core now have an Upstream-status, but how many have an *incorrect* Upstream-status? I suspect only a small percentage, but I think it's worth rethinking the lingo used to be clearer to non-native speakers like me.

Yes.

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Koen Kooi]

Op 9 feb. 2012, om 13:30 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:

> On Thursday 09 February 2012 13:22:10 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> I find the 'pending' confusing, is it 'pending submission' or 'pending
>> approval'? I'm marking patches in meta-oe with 'Upstream-status: Unknown'
>> as default instead of 'Pending' to make it a bit clearer. And patches
>> marked 'inappropriate' won't go in, it's 'rejected', 'unknown' or 'needs
>> work' in those cases. I'm not going to guess what upstream might think of
>> it, since I can't speak for them.
> 
> I think the distinction between Pending and Unknown is important. The status 
> is not completely unknown - the person who set it made an assessment that the 
> patch should be appropriate for sending upstream, even if it would need 
> further cleanup beforehand. Maybe "Pending" isn't the best word, I'm not sure, 
> but "Unknown" is not right either.
> 
>> All patches in OE-core now have an Upstream-status, but how many have an
>> *incorrect* Upstream-status?
> 
> The status ought to be correct with regard to the patch author's assessment of 
> whether or not the patch can go upstream.

That's where I disagree, it's called 'Upstream-status', not 'Perceived-upstream-status'. The field should reflect the status from an upstream perspective, not from the OE perspective. So both 'Pending' and 'Inappropriate' boil down to 'Not submitted' currently. Maybe I'm overthinking all this :)

regards,

Koen

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Paul Eggleton]

On Thursday 09 February 2012 15:51:11 Koen Kooi wrote:
> > The status ought to be correct with regard to the patch author's
> > assessment of whether or not the patch can go upstream.
> 
> That's where I disagree, it's called 'Upstream-status', not
> 'Perceived-upstream-status'. The field should reflect the status from an
> upstream perspective, not from the OE perspective. So both 'Pending' and
> 'Inappropriate' boil down to 'Not submitted' currently. Maybe I'm
> overthinking all this :)

Well unless I'm mistaken, the purpose of the field for which it was originally 
introduced is as I stated it, to track where we (layer maintainers) are in 
sending things upstream since the expectation is that we will be the ones 
doing the work required to do that. Whether or not the label(s) that get used 
accurately communicate that is another matter.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100%

[Saul Wold]

On 02/09/2012 07:31 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Thursday 09 February 2012 15:51:11 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> The status ought to be correct with regard to the patch author's
>>> assessment of whether or not the patch can go upstream.
>>
>> That's where I disagree, it's called 'Upstream-status', not
>> 'Perceived-upstream-status'. The field should reflect the status from an
>> upstream perspective, not from the OE perspective. So both 'Pending' and
>> 'Inappropriate' boil down to 'Not submitted' currently. Maybe I'm
>> overthinking all this :)
>
> Well unless I'm mistaken, the purpose of the field for which it was originally
> introduced is as I stated it, to track where we (layer maintainers) are in
> sending things upstream since the expectation is that we will be the ones
> doing the work required to do that. Whether or not the label(s) that get used
> accurately communicate that is another matter.
>
Paul is correct here, a number of people made various proposals for what 
to put into this field from the perspective of the maintainers. This was 
then documented by Mark Hatle and reviewed in the TSC at somepoint.  It 
is posted at:

http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines

There is never a good set of words because everyone can translate then 
differently. I think everyone is doing there best.  For the existing set 
of Pending, we are working to get those upstream, they would then be 
marked Submitted, after that we can get more accurate response from the 
upstream and mark the patch as such.  I think that the Submitted step is 
getting missed and we go from Pending -> updated upstream status.

Once we get through the "Pending" batch we can revisit the remaining 800 
or so patches.

We are working on it, every little step makes things better.

Sau!

> Cheers,
> Paul
>