Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Richard Purdie]

I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.

I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
a call on how things are looking.

If people don't have 1.2 issues to work on, I'd like people to start
looking at the bugs marked as 1.2.1. The reasoning here is simple, if we
do have to go to a -rc5 and the fixes are good enough, they might make
it into 1.2 (but no promises). We need to fix these issues in master and
for any 1.2.1 release anyway. I'd prefer people not to start working on
new features at this point but concentrate on improving the quality of
the release and fixing bugs.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Koen Kooi]

Op 18 apr. 2012, om 16:47 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
> 
> I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
> of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
> there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
> These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
> Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
> a call on how things are looking.
> 
> If people don't have 1.2 issues to work on, I'd like people to start
> looking at the bugs marked as 1.2.1. The reasoning here is simple, if we
> do have to go to a -rc5 and the fixes are good enough, they might make
> it into 1.2 (but no promises). We need to fix these issues in master and
> for any 1.2.1 release anyway. I'd prefer people not to start working on
> new features at this point but concentrate on improving the quality of
> the release and fixing bugs.

"The denzil is in the details" 

Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1565 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
> 
> I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
> of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
> there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
> These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
> Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
> a call on how things are looking.

Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
1.2.1 fixes)?

> If people don't have 1.2 issues to work on, I'd like people to start
> looking at the bugs marked as 1.2.1. The reasoning here is simple, if we
> do have to go to a -rc5 and the fixes are good enough, they might make
> it into 1.2 (but no promises). We need to fix these issues in master and
> for any 1.2.1 release anyway. I'd prefer people not to start working on
> new features at this point but concentrate on improving the quality of
> the release and fixing bugs.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1565 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
> 
> I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
> of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
> there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
> These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
> Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
> a call on how things are looking.

Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
1.2.1 fixes)?

> If people don't have 1.2 issues to work on, I'd like people to start
> looking at the bugs marked as 1.2.1. The reasoning here is simple, if we
> do have to go to a -rc5 and the fixes are good enough, they might make
> it into 1.2 (but no promises). We need to fix these issues in master and
> for any 1.2.1 release anyway. I'd prefer people not to start working on
> new features at this point but concentrate on improving the quality of
> the release and fixing bugs.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
> > 
> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
> > a call on how things are looking.
> 
> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
> 1.2.1 fixes)?

I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
rolling again at some point relatively soon.

It won't happen immediately as the 1.2 release is building which means I
have no resources to test master right now so I will hold off until
those are available.

To be honest at a personal level, I'm also pretty worn out after the
past couple of weeks of bug fixing, triage and review and would ideally
like to disappear for a couple of weeks. Realistically this isn't going
to happen now but maybe in a few weeks...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
> > 
> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
> > a call on how things are looking.
> 
> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
> 1.2.1 fixes)?

I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
rolling again at some point relatively soon.

It won't happen immediately as the 1.2 release is building which means I
have no resources to test master right now so I will hold off until
those are available.

To be honest at a personal level, I'm also pretty worn out after the
past couple of weeks of bug fixing, triage and review and would ideally
like to disappear for a couple of weeks. Realistically this isn't going
to happen now but maybe in a few weeks...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Darren Hart]

On 04/18/2012 08:20 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
>>>
>>> I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
>>> of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
>>> there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
>>> These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
>>> Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
>>> a call on how things are looking.
>>
>> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
>> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
>> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
>> 1.2.1 fixes)?
> 
> I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
> I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
> rolling again at some point relatively soon.
> 
> It won't happen immediately as the 1.2 release is building which means I
> have no resources to test master right now so I will hold off until
> those are available.
> 
> To be honest at a personal level, I'm also pretty worn out after the
> past couple of weeks of bug fixing, triage and review and would ideally
> like to disappear for a couple of weeks. Realistically this isn't going
> to happen now but maybe in a few weeks...
> 

I think I'll be proposing a forced vacation policy for RP which includes
temporarily locking out his user id on all yoctoproject resources....

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Darren Hart]

On 04/18/2012 08:20 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
>>>
>>> I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
>>> of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
>>> there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
>>> These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
>>> Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
>>> a call on how things are looking.
>>
>> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
>> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
>> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
>> 1.2.1 fixes)?
> 
> I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
> I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
> rolling again at some point relatively soon.
> 
> It won't happen immediately as the 1.2 release is building which means I
> have no resources to test master right now so I will hold off until
> those are available.
> 
> To be honest at a personal level, I'm also pretty worn out after the
> past couple of weeks of bug fixing, triage and review and would ideally
> like to disappear for a couple of weeks. Realistically this isn't going
> to happen now but maybe in a few weeks...
> 

I think I'll be proposing a forced vacation policy for RP which includes
temporarily locking out his user id on all yoctoproject resources....

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Chris Larson]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
>> >
>> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
>> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
>> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
>> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
>> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
>> > a call on how things are looking.
>>
>> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
>> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
>> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
>> 1.2.1 fixes)?
>
> I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
> I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
> rolling again at some point relatively soon.

Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which
aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything
but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything
being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm
sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete
local changes to get upstream..
-- 
Christopher Larson

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Chris Larson]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
>> >
>> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
>> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
>> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
>> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
>> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
>> > a call on how things are looking.
>>
>> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
>> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
>> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
>> 1.2.1 fixes)?
>
> I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
> I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
> rolling again at some point relatively soon.

Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which
aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything
but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything
being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm
sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete
local changes to get upstream..
-- 
Christopher Larson

Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
> >> >
> >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
> >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
> >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
> >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
> >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
> >> > a call on how things are looking.
> >>
> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
> >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
> >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
> >> 1.2.1 fixes)?
> >
> > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
> > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
> > rolling again at some point relatively soon.
> 
> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which
> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything
> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything
> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm
> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete
> local changes to get upstream..

So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a
queue of bugfixes which they've not shared?

This doesn't help us much with the quality of this release :/ At least
the next one might benefit I guess assuming you can resolve that backlog
problem...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
> >> >
> >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
> >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
> >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
> >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
> >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
> >> > a call on how things are looking.
> >>
> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
> >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
> >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
> >> 1.2.1 fixes)?
> >
> > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
> > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
> > rolling again at some point relatively soon.
> 
> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which
> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything
> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything
> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm
> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete
> local changes to get upstream..

So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a
queue of bugfixes which they've not shared?

This doesn't help us much with the quality of this release :/ At least
the next one might benefit I guess assuming you can resolve that backlog
problem...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Chris Larson]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie
>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
>> >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
>> >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
>> >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
>> >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
>> >> > a call on how things are looking.
>> >>
>> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
>> >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
>> >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
>> >> 1.2.1 fixes)?
>> >
>> > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
>> > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
>> > rolling again at some point relatively soon.
>>
>> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which
>> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything
>> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything
>> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm
>> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete
>> local changes to get upstream..
>
> So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a
> queue of bugfixes which they've not shared?

No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact
bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially
if they're critical, no?

> This doesn't help us much with the quality of this release :/ At least
> the next one might benefit I guess assuming you can resolve that backlog
> problem...

Imagining that every company is going to never have changes that are
not yet upstream is a pipe dream. There's often a delay due to time
constraints and scheduling. Welcome to the real world.
-- 
Christopher Larson

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Chris Larson]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie
>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
>> >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
>> >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
>> >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
>> >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
>> >> > a call on how things are looking.
>> >>
>> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
>> >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
>> >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
>> >> 1.2.1 fixes)?
>> >
>> > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
>> > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
>> > rolling again at some point relatively soon.
>>
>> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which
>> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything
>> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything
>> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm
>> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete
>> local changes to get upstream..
>
> So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a
> queue of bugfixes which they've not shared?

No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact
bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially
if they're critical, no?

> This doesn't help us much with the quality of this release :/ At least
> the next one might benefit I guess assuming you can resolve that backlog
> problem...

Imagining that every company is going to never have changes that are
not yet upstream is a pipe dream. There's often a delay due to time
constraints and scheduling. Welcome to the real world.
-- 
Christopher Larson

Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Chris Larson]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie
>>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
>>> >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
>>> >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
>>> >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
>>> >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
>>> >> > a call on how things are looking.
>>> >>
>>> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
>>> >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
>>> >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
>>> >> 1.2.1 fixes)?
>>> >
>>> > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
>>> > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
>>> > rolling again at some point relatively soon.
>>>
>>> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which
>>> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything
>>> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything
>>> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm
>>> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete
>>> local changes to get upstream..
>>
>> So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a
>> queue of bugfixes which they've not shared?
>
> No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact
> bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially
> if they're critical, no?

Further, again you're ignoring previous work. Whether we've been
working on stabilization right now is irrelevent given we have
previous work to push. Mentor has been using OE for its products for
years, to expect that a very small team which has to focus on customer
issues is going to catch up on all of that effort in a short period of
time is unreasonable. We've been working against our backlog for
months, and will continue to do so until we're caught up. The frozen
tree just slows that down even more.

If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you
have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which
aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your
implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization
efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current
development effort.
-- 
Christopher Larson

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Chris Larson]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie
>>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> >> > I thought I'd update everyone with the current 1.2 status.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm going to branch master for release at this point. We've fixed a lot
>>> >> > of issues, I'm hoping the -rc4 build will be a good one. There are signs
>>> >> > there are some more minor issues around and bugs do keep getting opened.
>>> >> > These are still being investigated so we'll continue to let that happen.
>>> >> > Once we have a QA report for -rc4, we'll be in a better position to make
>>> >> > a call on how things are looking.
>>> >>
>>> >> Does it mean that after creating branch, master will be open for
>>> >> postponed patches from ML and master-next or do you want to keep master
>>> >> as close to release branch as possible for some time (e.g. for those
>>> >> 1.2.1 fixes)?
>>> >
>>> > I have hoped people would work more on the stabilisation and testing but
>>> > I don't think I'll be able to hold off the pressure to start master
>>> > rolling again at some point relatively soon.
>>>
>>> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which
>>> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything
>>> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything
>>> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm
>>> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete
>>> local changes to get upstream..
>>
>> So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a
>> queue of bugfixes which they've not shared?
>
> No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact
> bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially
> if they're critical, no?

Further, again you're ignoring previous work. Whether we've been
working on stabilization right now is irrelevent given we have
previous work to push. Mentor has been using OE for its products for
years, to expect that a very small team which has to focus on customer
issues is going to catch up on all of that effort in a short period of
time is unreasonable. We've been working against our backlog for
months, and will continue to do so until we're caught up. The frozen
tree just slows that down even more.

If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you
have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which
aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your
implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization
efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current
development effort.
-- 
Christopher Larson

Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 14:11, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote:
..
> If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you
> have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which
> aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your
> implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization
> efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current
> development effort.
..

In fact if Yocto had something like Linux merge window and smaller
development releases with some time for bugfix only would allow for a
generally stable tree bug with a flow of new features comming all the
time.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 14:11, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote:
..
> If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you
> have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which
> aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your
> implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization
> efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current
> development effort.
..

In fact if Yocto had something like Linux merge window and smaller
development releases with some time for bugfix only would allow for a
generally stable tree bug with a flow of new features comming all the
time.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [OE-core] Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 10:11 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie
> > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie
> >>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >>> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which
> >>> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything
> >>> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything
> >>> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm
> >>> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete
> >>> local changes to get upstream..
> >>
> >> So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a
> >> queue of bugfixes which they've not shared?
> >
> > No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact
> > bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially
> > if they're critical, no?

They would have had a shot until very recently, yes. I'm hoping we're
about done with the release at this point as a line has to be drawn
somewhere and I think now is it.

> Further, again you're ignoring previous work. Whether we've been
> working on stabilization right now is irrelevent given we have
> previous work to push. Mentor has been using OE for its products for
> years, to expect that a very small team which has to focus on customer
> issues is going to catch up on all of that effort in a short period of
> time is unreasonable. We've been working against our backlog for
> months, and will continue to do so until we're caught up. The frozen
> tree just slows that down even more.
>
> If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you
> have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which
> aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your
> implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization
> efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current
> development effort.

Let me be clear, nothing I said is meant as a criticism as we all have
constraints to work within, me included and I'm familiar with the
problem. 

In the Mentor case I can feel some sympathy as I remember ELC-E 2007
where Embedded Alley presented about OE. I was sitting next to Holger in
the audience and they announced major improvements to BitBake. This was
somewhat of a surprise to the BitBake developers sitting there and I
went and asked where the patches were. I'm not sure we ever did get
them. I can therefore imagine some of the backlog you speak of. I know
this is going to change and get better in future, we need to work
through the backlog and that will take time on all sides. Every partner
in the project has some issues they are working through in one form or
another  be it backlog, transition or otherwise.

Posting non-bugfixes is fine at the moment as long as people have a
reasonable expectation about the fact they won't merge immediately. I
appreciate you understand that, equally there are others on this mailing
list who don't and I do have to keep mentioning it for that reason :(.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Yocto Project 1.2 Release Status

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 10:11 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Chris Larson <clarson@kergoth.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Purdie
> > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:22 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Richard Purdie
> >>> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 16:53 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >>> Just because people have things to push or are pushing things which
> >>> aren't bugfixes doesn't mean their time is being taken up by anything
> >>> but stabilization right now. Your statement implies that everything
> >>> being pushed is being currently worked on, which is incorrect. I'm
> >>> sure Mentor isn't the only company with a backlog of already complete
> >>> local changes to get upstream..
> >>
> >> So you're saying Mentor has been working on stabilization and has a
> >> queue of bugfixes which they've not shared?
> >
> > No, I never said they were just bugfixes. If they were low impact
> > bugfixes, they'd have a shot at making it into the release, especially
> > if they're critical, no?

They would have had a shot until very recently, yes. I'm hoping we're
about done with the release at this point as a line has to be drawn
somewhere and I think now is it.

> Further, again you're ignoring previous work. Whether we've been
> working on stabilization right now is irrelevent given we have
> previous work to push. Mentor has been using OE for its products for
> years, to expect that a very small team which has to focus on customer
> issues is going to catch up on all of that effort in a short period of
> time is unreasonable. We've been working against our backlog for
> months, and will continue to do so until we're caught up. The frozen
> tree just slows that down even more.
>
> If you want folks like us working more closely with upstream, then you
> have to realize that folks are going to have changes to push which
> aren't bugfixes (or aren't critical), and contrary to your
> implication, does not imply that folks are ignoring the stabilization
> efffort. Previous work needs to go up, and isn't occupying current
> development effort.

Let me be clear, nothing I said is meant as a criticism as we all have
constraints to work within, me included and I'm familiar with the
problem. 

In the Mentor case I can feel some sympathy as I remember ELC-E 2007
where Embedded Alley presented about OE. I was sitting next to Holger in
the audience and they announced major improvements to BitBake. This was
somewhat of a surprise to the BitBake developers sitting there and I
went and asked where the patches were. I'm not sure we ever did get
them. I can therefore imagine some of the backlog you speak of. I know
this is going to change and get better in future, we need to work
through the backlog and that will take time on all sides. Every partner
in the project has some issues they are working through in one form or
another  be it backlog, transition or otherwise.

Posting non-bugfixes is fine at the moment as long as people have a
reasonable expectation about the fact they won't merge immediately. I
appreciate you understand that, equally there are others on this mailing
list who don't and I do have to keep mentioning it for that reason :(.

Cheers,

Richard