Re: [PATCH v5] fetch/gitsm: avoid live submodule fetching during unpack()

[Joshua Watt <jpewhacker@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2311 bytes --]

On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 07:36 -0500, Matt Hoosier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:20 AM Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfo
> undation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 08:47 -0500, Matt Hoosier wrote:
> > 
> > > Thanks for the help getting this landed. With this change being
> > part
> > 
> > > of Bitbake, what's the procedure for attempting to get it
> > backported
> > 
> > > to the final MR of Yocto 2.2? Do I just backport it to a certain
> > 
> > > maintenance branch of Bitbake (announced somehow with a prefix on
> > the
> > 
> > > git-send-email subject) and it would magically pop up out the
> > 
> > > corresponding branch of poky if accepted to Bitbake?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > With bitbake its a case of requesting backports to the appropriate
> > 
> > stable release branches, either in the form of a patch with [1.3X]
> > in
> > 
> > the subject, or just mention which revision to cherry-pick to which
> > 
> > branch if it cherry-picks cleanly.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I think to get back to 2.2, we'd have to backport to 1.38, 1.36,
> > 1.34
> > 
> > and 1.32. I do get nervous about patches which land in master and
> > then 
> > 
> > immediately get backported across so many releases. I'm less
> > nervous if
> > 
> > the patches cleanly cherry-pick as at least the code is the same.
> > How
> > 
> > cleanly does it backport?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Richard
> > 
> > 
> 
> It's not a completely clean back-port; some of the context lines
> don't match because of changes to the logic that detect when a
> repository uses gitsubmodules to begin with. The actual logic changes
> lift pretty-much straight in though.
> 
> I appreciate your point about being cautious when putting unproven
> code straight into a branch that gets used for maintenance releases
> though. So I could understand wanting to let it prove out on master
> for a while. Conversely, there are no recipes in Poky that use gitsm
> to begin with, so I don't know how much additional confidence would
> really be gained just through time. Is that also an argument that the
> potential impact to the stable branch of poky's own metadata is
> small?

It might be worth looking through meta-oe also, at least as a reference
point.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2579 bytes --]