* Upstream-Status finally @ 100% @ 2012-02-08 9:11 ` Saul Wold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Saul Wold @ 2012-02-08 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie, Yocto Project Discussion, 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer' 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! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Upstream-Status finally @ 100% @ 2012-02-08 9:11 ` Saul Wold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Saul Wold @ 2012-02-08 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie, Yocto Project Discussion, 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer' Cc: Stewart, David C 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! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 9:11 ` Saul Wold (?) @ 2012-02-08 10:07 ` Björn Stenberg 2012-02-08 18:57 ` Saul Wold 2012-02-08 19:23 ` Khem Raj -1 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Björn Stenberg @ 2012-02-08 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yocto Project Discussion 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 10:07 ` Björn Stenberg @ 2012-02-08 18:57 ` Saul Wold 2012-02-08 21:26 ` Daniel Stenberg 2012-02-08 19:23 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Saul Wold @ 2012-02-08 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Björn Stenberg; +Cc: Yocto Project Discussion 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! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 18:57 ` Saul Wold @ 2012-02-08 21:26 ` Daniel Stenberg 2012-02-08 21:34 ` Khem Raj 2012-02-08 23:18 ` Saul Wold 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Daniel Stenberg @ 2012-02-08 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Saul Wold; +Cc: Yocto Project Discussion [-- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 21:26 ` Daniel Stenberg @ 2012-02-08 21:34 ` Khem Raj 2012-02-08 23:18 ` Saul Wold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2012-02-08 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Stenberg; +Cc: Yocto Project Discussion 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 21:26 ` Daniel Stenberg 2012-02-08 21:34 ` Khem Raj @ 2012-02-08 23:18 ` Saul Wold 2012-02-09 9:26 ` Daniel Stenberg 2012-02-09 12:22 ` Koen Kooi 1 sibling, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Saul Wold @ 2012-02-08 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Stenberg; +Cc: Yocto Project Discussion 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! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 23:18 ` Saul Wold @ 2012-02-09 9:26 ` Daniel Stenberg 2012-02-09 12:22 ` Koen Kooi 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Daniel Stenberg @ 2012-02-09 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Saul Wold; +Cc: Yocto Project Discussion 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 23:18 ` Saul Wold 2012-02-09 9:26 ` Daniel Stenberg @ 2012-02-09 12:22 ` Koen Kooi 2012-02-09 12:30 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-02-09 14:46 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Koen Kooi @ 2012-02-09 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Saul Wold; +Cc: Yocto Project Discussion 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-09 12:22 ` Koen Kooi @ 2012-02-09 12:30 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-02-09 14:51 ` Koen Kooi 2012-02-09 14:46 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggleton @ 2012-02-09 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yocto; +Cc: Koen Kooi 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-09 12:30 ` Paul Eggleton @ 2012-02-09 14:51 ` Koen Kooi 2012-02-09 15:31 ` Paul Eggleton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Koen Kooi @ 2012-02-09 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: yocto 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-09 14:51 ` Koen Kooi @ 2012-02-09 15:31 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-02-09 17:39 ` Saul Wold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggleton @ 2012-02-09 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Koen Kooi; +Cc: yocto 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-09 15:31 ` Paul Eggleton @ 2012-02-09 17:39 ` Saul Wold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Saul Wold @ 2012-02-09 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: yocto, Koen Kooi 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 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-09 12:22 ` Koen Kooi 2012-02-09 12:30 ` Paul Eggleton @ 2012-02-09 14:46 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2012-02-09 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Koen Kooi; +Cc: Yocto Project Discussion 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 10:07 ` Björn Stenberg 2012-02-08 18:57 ` Saul Wold @ 2012-02-08 19:23 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2012-02-08 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Björn Stenberg; +Cc: Yocto Project Discussion 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 9:11 ` Saul Wold (?) (?) @ 2012-02-08 17:07 ` Stewart, David C 2012-02-08 17:34 ` Osier-mixon, Jeffrey -1 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Stewart, David C @ 2012-02-08 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wold, Saul, Richard Purdie, Yocto Project Discussion, 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer' > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 17:07 ` Stewart, David C @ 2012-02-08 17:34 ` Osier-mixon, Jeffrey 2012-02-08 17:37 ` [yocto] " Paul Eggleton 2012-02-08 17:45 ` [yocto] " Khem Raj 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey @ 2012-02-08 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stewart, David C Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer, Yocto Project Discussion, Wold, Saul [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 17:34 ` Osier-mixon, Jeffrey @ 2012-02-08 17:37 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-02-08 17:45 ` [yocto] " Khem Raj 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggleton @ 2012-02-08 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yocto; +Cc: Wold, Saul, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [yocto] Upstream-Status finally @ 100% @ 2012-02-08 17:37 ` Paul Eggleton 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggleton @ 2012-02-08 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yocto Cc: Wold, Saul, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer, Stewart, David C, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 17:34 ` Osier-mixon, Jeffrey @ 2012-02-08 17:45 ` Khem Raj 2012-02-08 17:45 ` [yocto] " Khem Raj 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2012-02-08 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey Cc: Yocto Project Discussion, Wold, Saul, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [yocto] Upstream-Status finally @ 100% @ 2012-02-08 17:45 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2012-02-08 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey Cc: Yocto Project Discussion, Wold, Saul, Stewart, David C, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 17:45 ` [yocto] " Khem Raj (?) @ 2012-02-08 18:04 ` Osier-mixon, Jeffrey 2012-02-08 18:45 ` [yocto] " Saul Wold -1 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey @ 2012-02-08 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj Cc: Yocto Project Discussion, Wold, Saul, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 18:04 ` Osier-mixon, Jeffrey @ 2012-02-08 18:45 ` Saul Wold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Saul Wold @ 2012-02-08 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey Cc: Yocto Project Discussion, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer 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/> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [yocto] Upstream-Status finally @ 100% @ 2012-02-08 18:45 ` Saul Wold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Saul Wold @ 2012-02-08 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey Cc: Yocto Project Discussion, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer, Stewart, David C 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/> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] Upstream-Status finally @ 100% 2012-02-08 18:45 ` [yocto] " Saul Wold @ 2012-02-08 21:44 ` Paul Menzel -1 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Paul Menzel @ 2012-02-08 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: Yocto Project Discussion [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% @ 2012-02-08 21:44 ` Paul Menzel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Paul Menzel @ 2012-02-08 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Cc: Yocto, Discussion, Stewart, David C, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-02-09 17:39 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-02-08 9:11 Upstream-Status finally @ 100% Saul Wold 2012-02-08 9:11 ` Saul Wold 2012-02-08 10:07 ` Björn Stenberg 2012-02-08 18:57 ` Saul Wold 2012-02-08 21:26 ` Daniel Stenberg 2012-02-08 21:34 ` Khem Raj 2012-02-08 23:18 ` Saul Wold 2012-02-09 9:26 ` Daniel Stenberg 2012-02-09 12:22 ` Koen Kooi 2012-02-09 12:30 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-02-09 14:51 ` Koen Kooi 2012-02-09 15:31 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-02-09 17:39 ` Saul Wold 2012-02-09 14:46 ` Khem Raj 2012-02-08 19:23 ` Khem Raj 2012-02-08 17:07 ` Stewart, David C 2012-02-08 17:34 ` Osier-mixon, Jeffrey 2012-02-08 17:37 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-02-08 17:37 ` [yocto] " Paul Eggleton 2012-02-08 17:45 ` Khem Raj 2012-02-08 17:45 ` [yocto] " Khem Raj 2012-02-08 18:04 ` Osier-mixon, Jeffrey 2012-02-08 18:45 ` Saul Wold 2012-02-08 18:45 ` [yocto] " Saul Wold 2012-02-08 21:44 ` [OE-core] " Paul Menzel 2012-02-08 21:44 ` Paul Menzel
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.