From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f196.google.com (mail-yw0-f196.google.com [209.85.161.196]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F408745F2 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 12:37:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f196.google.com with SMTP id p14-v6so4064942ywm.11 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 05:37:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0tcZpcYHUtq+Pc6jTI520p9kmZOu6dPiloktsPczpRE=; b=kg4RCztv8WkEbpXR9YoO2ErxlgYRDu4buJLeZp/o7rgaaNLpjQXgbX40WpkRVgydVq NKmhwfkPNO6WTFq/TCHHVmZTW3NWy/7MIteMwW08byvvLJd7lRZ+JMaiaBH/5XmoZpY9 jnsiF1WhLTAoj7mgwyxsFVe7P+04TORO1Bm5TZnvfI6QC6+14PgD74mA9mP6uy8ynXQq gchdEcWq3m7eb6xvkJ3oLkEZqH9ZVwPhsw5jIwJ6IjxuHLcFc5tsgXJs/aFaBFa3qYJS 3BY6pBsPhGD+YhpNIepbOqS5hV3GaEBZq/xf+o9OVTEmjo3oyUZxkxMoaZFqFtlkDETh bleA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0tcZpcYHUtq+Pc6jTI520p9kmZOu6dPiloktsPczpRE=; b=D0v0aVTsoiyKHc2swWTA/St8z9j+VuyDmPDjSWlJt9/oZjbO8Ria4M54/ggTRBIP4k MMeqw4A6lRZibLCC7KcBy36wslbhYc3eCiUqd4tLNWaJOs/SMQdfoL3CoI+CL67HbmZK YJA3gqq3EwD/TsEmrezH5gFhWDql6ShFA2iMCSc6QU6Fsr2o1bheVHh/YbOJU5yOpUdj MmfZnYKMXn8N3LkVt34L8uiwEYYpoFHzktiQW8cVp6Ei3CzkBd7yECDqnYKjh63mZvUU 9cDiACZV0aCRT9NFAueE/QZZnXjEvpPDfcT2tj5WLXhMzirl+afrbNMjXgmce5eHHUNH ANmw== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0yXO0hcVwbxunnYk2+Esu39ug0bKx6EjJ3AtLD4yxSgrz3ho7Z B7hR9QVnxH28nAIO/w6aWh2Z9Ff4EdWrjNZ2hhg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKV6Sfk8QgepXHmPtznTM3MStSfZemucfvjmcvNjTToEeOHlAI1+lEXFUwkEJMKSCz8jKTCAxYM2YCev+gfXY4= X-Received: by 2002:a81:2d5:: with SMTP id 204-v6mr3212223ywc.134.1528461425849; Fri, 08 Jun 2018 05:37:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180525134537.27659-1-matt.hoosier@gmail.com> <03bb3ecd46e56bc21799d56f723bc01d966230c8.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <65e369d383320a651429a9b59a8eb71c862b1d95.camel@linuxfoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <65e369d383320a651429a9b59a8eb71c862b1d95.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Matt Hoosier Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 07:36:29 -0500 Message-ID: To: richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org Cc: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] fetch/gitsm: avoid live submodule fetching during unpack() X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussion that advance bitbake development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:37:05 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000057403a056e20a815" --00000000000057403a056e20a815 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:20 AM Richard Purdie < richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.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? --00000000000057403a056e20a815 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:20 AM Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundati= on.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 backport= ed
> 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<= br> > 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-p= ort; some of the context lines don't match because of changes to the lo= gic that detect when a repository uses gitsubmodules to begin with. The act= ual logic changes lift pretty-much straight in though.

=
I appreciate your point about being cautious when putting unproven cod= e 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. Conv= ersely, 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 thro= ugh time. Is that also an argument that the potential impact to the stable = branch of poky's own metadata is small?
--00000000000057403a056e20a815--