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?

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:00 PM Matt Hoosier <matt.hoosier@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:03 AM Richard Purdie <
> richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2018-06-06 at 08:36 -0500, Matt Hoosier wrote:
>> > Okay, I'll see what's going on with that.
>
>
> I've posted an updated copy at
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/bitbake-devel/2018-June/009365.html
> that address the usage of the submodule commands that were too new for
> CentOS. Fortunately, their usage was basically unnecessary -- I just
> deleted them outright.
>
>
>> I'm still interested to
>> > know if there's a listing of all the various automated regimens that
>> > are used as CI before accepting Bitbake/Poky patches -- I don't want
>> > to keep wasting the maintainers' time with failures that I could have
>> > uncovered independently.
>>
>> The test matrix is basically encoded into:
>>
>>
>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/yocto-autobuilder-helper/tree/config.json
>>
>> run across the various autobuilder workers on https://autobuilder.yocto
>> .io/buildslaves, i.e. centos7, debian8, debian9, fedora26, fedora27,
>> opensuse423, opensuse tumbleweed, ubuntu 1604 and ubuntu 1704
>>
>> I'm not sure its reasonable to expect everyone to test across all those
>> combinations!
>>
>
> Okay, I agree. :)
>
> I think I've managed to test at the new and old ends of each of the major
> distro families there, so I'll be content let the autobuilder sniff out any
> more corner cases.
>
>
>>
>> > Any comments on the aims and overall technique of this change? So far
>> > all I've really gotten back are copy/pastes of automated builder
>> > failures.
>>
>> I strongly believe we should only have network access in do_fetch and
>> that our source mirroring should be functional and I therefore very
>> much support what the patch is doing and appreciate this getting fixed.
>>
>> Sorry for the terse nature of the replies, we're just seeing a lot of
>> patches which are breaking the regression tests and its hard to root
>> cause them back to the underlying patches and help people debug them.
>>
>> I do appreciate the help in getting this issue fixed as it will be a
>> good improvement to the fetcher.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>
> Sounds great; thanks, Richard.
>