From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784ECE00593 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:51:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by wibhq12 with SMTP id hq12so1642974wib.35 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:51:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.181.11.227 with SMTP id el3mr3275970wid.18.1328799078273; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:51:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.1.36] (ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl. [84.80.112.235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id eq5sm8488677wib.2.2012.02.09.06.51.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:51:17 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) From: Koen Kooi In-Reply-To: <1636213.TrTs1YKXOm@helios> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:51:11 +0100 Message-Id: <3FF9BD4A-F07C-4958-8758-9D4DC02171A0@beagleboard.org> References: <4F323C52.8030304@intel.com> <4F3302D3.7070507@linux.intel.com> <1636213.TrTs1YKXOm@helios> To: Paul Eggleton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnrgsF1FyXs1qVYEfqBYqlyktRpgWrKhDiuhCggu3siMoGhvym3GRq9WHs/Blc0BjyCbC37 Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:51:19 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. >=20 > I think the distinction between Pending and Unknown is important. The = status=20 > is not completely unknown - the person who set it made an assessment = that the=20 > patch should be appropriate for sending upstream, even if it would = need=20 > further cleanup beforehand. Maybe "Pending" isn't the best word, I'm = not sure,=20 > but "Unknown" is not right either. >=20 >> All patches in OE-core now have an Upstream-status, but how many have = an >> *incorrect* Upstream-status? >=20 > The status ought to be correct with regard to the patch author's = assessment of=20 > 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=