meta-oe post holiday patchwork cleanup

meta-oe post holiday patchwork cleanup

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

tl;dr version: get your subject-prefix right

Hi,

I've cleaned up patchwork by marking every meta-oe patch as archived, minus
the one Martin just sent.

This means all the pending patches for meta-oe are listed here:

http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta-oe

If your patches are missing, resend them using the method outlined in the
README of the respective meta-openembedded layer.

I'll include the meta-oe one below, since too many patches still don't comply:

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This layer depends on:

URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
branch: master
revision: HEAD

Send pull requests to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org with
'[meta-oe]' in the subject'

When sending single patches, please use something like 'git send-email -1
- --to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org --subject-prefix meta-oe'

You are encouraged to fork the mirror on github
https://github.com/openembedded/meta-oe/ to share your patches, this is
preferred for patch sets consisting of more than one patch. Other services
like gitorious, repo.or.cz or self hosted setups are of course accepted as
well, 'git fetch <remote>' works the same on all of them. We recommend
github because it is free, easy to use, has been proven to be reliable and
has a really good web GUI.

Main layer maintainer: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most important thing of that is the subject prefix. I only read emails
with a [meta-<foo>] subject prefix on oe-devel nowadays and I look at
http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta- more often than
oe-devel.

So: Get your subject-prefix right

And kudos to Andreas, Martin and Otavio for getting their pull requests
right pretty much all the time.

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAk8O7MoACgkQMkyGM64RGpFPUgCfQlCodSyFbuqPSfY6PVL2cPsR
YE8AoIRcwaHFCyvULMbFSH3PeFY8Fjmj
=cU1X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: meta-oe post holiday patchwork cleanup

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 941 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 03:23:08PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> tl;dr version: get your subject-prefix right
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've cleaned up patchwork by marking every meta-oe patch as archived, minus
> the one Martin just sent.
> 
> This means all the pending patches for meta-oe are listed here:
> 
> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta-oe
> 
> If your patches are missing, resend them using the method outlined in the
> README of the respective meta-openembedded layer.

I've checked mine and for some reason
http://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/19153/
wasn't marked as Accepted by git hook (done that manually)

and [meta-oe] gpsd: disable xmlto
http://patches.openembedded.org/patch/19165/
was sent only few minutes before this email, so I guess it's still in
queue.

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

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

Re: meta-oe post holiday patchwork cleanup

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:23, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:

> And kudos to Andreas, Martin and Otavio for getting their pull requests
> right pretty much all the time.
>

You're welcome :-D

-- 
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: meta-oe post holiday patchwork cleanup

[Peter Bigot]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> tl;dr version: get your subject-prefix right
>
> Hi,
>
> I've cleaned up patchwork by marking every meta-oe patch as archived, minus
> the one Martin just sent.
>
> This means all the pending patches for meta-oe are listed here:
>
> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta-oe
>
> If your patches are missing, resend them using the method outlined in the
> README of the respective meta-openembedded layer.
>
> I'll include the meta-oe one below, since too many patches still don't comply:
>
> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This layer depends on:
>
> URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
> branch: master
> revision: HEAD
>
> Send pull requests to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org with
> '[meta-oe]' in the subject'
>
> When sending single patches, please use something like 'git send-email -1
> - --to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org --subject-prefix meta-oe'
>
> You are encouraged to fork the mirror on github
> https://github.com/openembedded/meta-oe/ to share your patches, this is
> preferred for patch sets consisting of more than one patch. Other services
> like gitorious, repo.or.cz or self hosted setups are of course accepted as
> well, 'git fetch <remote>' works the same on all of them. We recommend
> github because it is free, easy to use, has been proven to be reliable and
> has a really good web GUI.
>
> Main layer maintainer: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
>
> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The most important thing of that is the subject prefix. I only read emails
> with a [meta-<foo>] subject prefix on oe-devel nowadays and I look at
> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta- more often than
> oe-devel.
>
> So: Get your subject-prefix right
>
> And kudos to Andreas, Martin and Otavio for getting their pull requests
> right pretty much all the time.

While I appreciate that a blanket "throw it out; if they care they'll
resend it" approach is an effective way to deal with the backlog
resulting from an absence, I don't appreciate that in addition to the
time I spent crafting patches to improve oe-core and submitting them
(with the right prefix AFAIK), I am now expected to do so again.
Further, the archived discussion of one of my patches included a
request for clarification on how to address a licensing issue which
was never answered, and which now presumably never will be.

This sort of practice discourages people (well, me at least) from
contributing to this project.

Peter

> regards,
>
> Koen
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk8O7MoACgkQMkyGM64RGpFPUgCfQlCodSyFbuqPSfY6PVL2cPsR
> YE8AoIRcwaHFCyvULMbFSH3PeFY8Fjmj
> =cU1X
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: meta-oe post holiday patchwork cleanup

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Peter Bigot <bigotp@acm.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> tl;dr version: get your subject-prefix right
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've cleaned up patchwork by marking every meta-oe patch as archived, minus
>> the one Martin just sent.
>>
>> This means all the pending patches for meta-oe are listed here:
>>
>> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta-oe
>>
>> If your patches are missing, resend them using the method outlined in the
>> README of the respective meta-openembedded layer.
>>
>> I'll include the meta-oe one below, since too many patches still don't comply:
>>
>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This layer depends on:
>>
>> URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
>> branch: master
>> revision: HEAD
>>
>> Send pull requests to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org with
>> '[meta-oe]' in the subject'
>>
>> When sending single patches, please use something like 'git send-email -1
>> - --to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org --subject-prefix meta-oe'
>>
>> You are encouraged to fork the mirror on github
>> https://github.com/openembedded/meta-oe/ to share your patches, this is
>> preferred for patch sets consisting of more than one patch. Other services
>> like gitorious, repo.or.cz or self hosted setups are of course accepted as
>> well, 'git fetch <remote>' works the same on all of them. We recommend
>> github because it is free, easy to use, has been proven to be reliable and
>> has a really good web GUI.
>>
>> Main layer maintainer: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
>>
>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The most important thing of that is the subject prefix. I only read emails
>> with a [meta-<foo>] subject prefix on oe-devel nowadays and I look at
>> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta- more often than
>> oe-devel.
>>
>> So: Get your subject-prefix right
>>
>> And kudos to Andreas, Martin and Otavio for getting their pull requests
>> right pretty much all the time.
>
> While I appreciate that a blanket "throw it out; if they care they'll
> resend it" approach is an effective way to deal with the backlog
> resulting from an absence, I don't appreciate that in addition to the
> time I spent crafting patches to improve oe-core and submitting them
> (with the right prefix AFAIK), I am now expected to do so again.
> Further, the archived discussion of one of my patches included a
> request for clarification on how to address a licensing issue which
> was never answered, and which now presumably never will be.
>
> This sort of practice discourages people (well, me at least) from
> contributing to this project.

Perhaps you can just mark them correctly in patchworks again instead
of resubmitting? Somewhat easier, you can even keep a list of patch
id's and do this automatically via the pwclient.

-M

Re: meta-oe post holiday patchwork cleanup

[Peter Bigot]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
<B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Peter Bigot <bigotp@acm.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> tl;dr version: get your subject-prefix right
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've cleaned up patchwork by marking every meta-oe patch as archived, minus
>>> the one Martin just sent.
>>>
>>> This means all the pending patches for meta-oe are listed here:
>>>
>>> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta-oe
>>>
>>> If your patches are missing, resend them using the method outlined in the
>>> README of the respective meta-openembedded layer.
>>>
>>> I'll include the meta-oe one below, since too many patches still don't comply:
>>>
>>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> This layer depends on:
>>>
>>> URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
>>> branch: master
>>> revision: HEAD
>>>
>>> Send pull requests to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org with
>>> '[meta-oe]' in the subject'
>>>
>>> When sending single patches, please use something like 'git send-email -1
>>> - --to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org --subject-prefix meta-oe'
>>>
>>> You are encouraged to fork the mirror on github
>>> https://github.com/openembedded/meta-oe/ to share your patches, this is
>>> preferred for patch sets consisting of more than one patch. Other services
>>> like gitorious, repo.or.cz or self hosted setups are of course accepted as
>>> well, 'git fetch <remote>' works the same on all of them. We recommend
>>> github because it is free, easy to use, has been proven to be reliable and
>>> has a really good web GUI.
>>>
>>> Main layer maintainer: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
>>>
>>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> The most important thing of that is the subject prefix. I only read emails
>>> with a [meta-<foo>] subject prefix on oe-devel nowadays and I look at
>>> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta- more often than
>>> oe-devel.
>>>
>>> So: Get your subject-prefix right
>>>
>>> And kudos to Andreas, Martin and Otavio for getting their pull requests
>>> right pretty much all the time.
>>
>> While I appreciate that a blanket "throw it out; if they care they'll
>> resend it" approach is an effective way to deal with the backlog
>> resulting from an absence, I don't appreciate that in addition to the
>> time I spent crafting patches to improve oe-core and submitting them
>> (with the right prefix AFAIK), I am now expected to do so again.
>> Further, the archived discussion of one of my patches included a
>> request for clarification on how to address a licensing issue which
>> was never answered, and which now presumably never will be.
>>
>> This sort of practice discourages people (well, me at least) from
>> contributing to this project.
>
> Perhaps you can just mark them correctly in patchworks again instead
> of resubmitting? Somewhat easier, you can even keep a list of patch
> id's and do this automatically via the pwclient.

Maybe; the only one I can see in the archive is the one that has an
unanswered question.  If I request a patchwork account, would I be
able to do this?  (I don't have/use/know anything about pwclient.)

The others don't appear to be there; maybe they got merged in since I
last looked, in which case I apologize for grumbling prematurely.  (My
oe-core effort is unfunded so I only get a chance to poke at it for a
couple days every couple weeks, and only see the emails during the off
times.)

Peter

> -M
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: meta-oe post holiday patchwork cleanup

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Peter Bigot <bigotp@acm.org> wrote:
> Maybe; the only one I can see in the archive is the one that has an
> unanswered question.  If I request a patchwork account, would I be
> able to do this?  (I don't have/use/know anything about pwclient.)

Not sure how the OE patchworks is setup... but I think we have made
the case for getting users the ability to do that though (I know we
can do this on our internal patchworks setup) ;)

-M

Re: meta-oe post holiday patchwork cleanup

[martin.jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4389 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 06:47:29PM -0600, Peter Bigot wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
> <B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Peter Bigot <bigotp@acm.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>
> >>> tl;dr version: get your subject-prefix right
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I've cleaned up patchwork by marking every meta-oe patch as archived, minus
> >>> the one Martin just sent.
> >>>
> >>> This means all the pending patches for meta-oe are listed here:
> >>>
> >>> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta-oe
> >>>
> >>> If your patches are missing, resend them using the method outlined in the
> >>> README of the respective meta-openembedded layer.
> >>>
> >>> I'll include the meta-oe one below, since too many patches still don't comply:
> >>>
> >>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> This layer depends on:
> >>>
> >>> URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
> >>> branch: master
> >>> revision: HEAD
> >>>
> >>> Send pull requests to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org with
> >>> '[meta-oe]' in the subject'
> >>>
> >>> When sending single patches, please use something like 'git send-email -1
> >>> - --to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org --subject-prefix meta-oe'
> >>>
> >>> You are encouraged to fork the mirror on github
> >>> https://github.com/openembedded/meta-oe/ to share your patches, this is
> >>> preferred for patch sets consisting of more than one patch. Other services
> >>> like gitorious, repo.or.cz or self hosted setups are of course accepted as
> >>> well, 'git fetch <remote>' works the same on all of them. We recommend
> >>> github because it is free, easy to use, has been proven to be reliable and
> >>> has a really good web GUI.
> >>>
> >>> Main layer maintainer: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
> >>>
> >>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> The most important thing of that is the subject prefix. I only read emails
> >>> with a [meta-<foo>] subject prefix on oe-devel nowadays and I look at
> >>> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta- more often than
> >>> oe-devel.
> >>>
> >>> So: Get your subject-prefix right
> >>>
> >>> And kudos to Andreas, Martin and Otavio for getting their pull requests
> >>> right pretty much all the time.
> >>
> >> While I appreciate that a blanket "throw it out; if they care they'll
> >> resend it" approach is an effective way to deal with the backlog
> >> resulting from an absence, I don't appreciate that in addition to the
> >> time I spent crafting patches to improve oe-core and submitting them
> >> (with the right prefix AFAIK), I am now expected to do so again.
> >> Further, the archived discussion of one of my patches included a
> >> request for clarification on how to address a licensing issue which
> >> was never answered, and which now presumably never will be.
> >>
> >> This sort of practice discourages people (well, me at least) from
> >> contributing to this project.
> >
> > Perhaps you can just mark them correctly in patchworks again instead
> > of resubmitting? Somewhat easier, you can even keep a list of patch
> > id's and do this automatically via the pwclient.
> 
> Maybe; the only one I can see in the archive is the one that has an
> unanswered question.  If I request a patchwork account, would I be
> able to do this?  (I don't have/use/know anything about pwclient.)

If it still works the same, then create patchwork account yourself with
same e-mail address you're using when sending patches and you should be
able to update your patches.

> The others don't appear to be there; maybe they got merged in since I
> last looked, in which case I apologize for grumbling prematurely.  (My
> oe-core effort is unfunded so I only get a chance to poke at it for a
> couple days every couple weeks, and only see the emails during the off
> times.)

Be aware that oe-core patches are not really tracked on patchwork,
patchwork is used mostly for meta-* patches.

Cheers,

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

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

Re: meta-oe post holiday patchwork cleanup

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2012/1/13 <martin.jansa@gmail.com>

> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 06:47:29PM -0600, Peter Bigot wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
> > <B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Peter Bigot <bigotp@acm.org> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Koen Kooi <
> koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> > >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >>> Hash: SHA1
> > >>>
> > >>> tl;dr version: get your subject-prefix right
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I've cleaned up patchwork by marking every meta-oe patch as
> archived, minus
> > >>> the one Martin just sent.
> > >>>
> > >>> This means all the pending patches for meta-oe are listed here:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta-oe
> > >>>
> > >>> If your patches are missing, resend them using the method outlined
> in the
> > >>> README of the respective meta-openembedded layer.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll include the meta-oe one below, since too many patches still
> don't comply:
> > >>>
> > >>> -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> This layer depends on:
> > >>>
> > >>> URI: git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core
> > >>> branch: master
> > >>> revision: HEAD
> > >>>
> > >>> Send pull requests to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org with
> > >>> '[meta-oe]' in the subject'
> > >>>
> > >>> When sending single patches, please use something like 'git
> send-email -1
> > >>> - --to openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org --subject-prefix
> meta-oe'
> > >>>
> > >>> You are encouraged to fork the mirror on github
> > >>> https://github.com/openembedded/meta-oe/ to share your patches,
> this is
> > >>> preferred for patch sets consisting of more than one patch. Other
> services
> > >>> like gitorious, repo.or.cz or self hosted setups are of course
> accepted as
> > >>> well, 'git fetch <remote>' works the same on all of them. We
> recommend
> > >>> github because it is free, easy to use, has been proven to be
> reliable and
> > >>> has a really good web GUI.
> > >>>
> > >>> Main layer maintainer: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
> > >>>
> > >>> -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> The most important thing of that is the subject prefix. I only read
> emails
> > >>> with a [meta-<foo>] subject prefix on oe-devel nowadays and I look at
> > >>> http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?q=meta- more often
> than
> > >>> oe-devel.
> > >>>
> > >>> So: Get your subject-prefix right
> > >>>
> > >>> And kudos to Andreas, Martin and Otavio for getting their pull
> requests
> > >>> right pretty much all the time.
> > >>
> > >> While I appreciate that a blanket "throw it out; if they care they'll
> > >> resend it" approach is an effective way to deal with the backlog
> > >> resulting from an absence, I don't appreciate that in addition to the
> > >> time I spent crafting patches to improve oe-core and submitting them
> > >> (with the right prefix AFAIK), I am now expected to do so again.
> > >> Further, the archived discussion of one of my patches included a
> > >> request for clarification on how to address a licensing issue which
> > >> was never answered, and which now presumably never will be.
> > >>
> > >> This sort of practice discourages people (well, me at least) from
> > >> contributing to this project.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you can just mark them correctly in patchworks again instead
> > > of resubmitting? Somewhat easier, you can even keep a list of patch
> > > id's and do this automatically via the pwclient.
> >
> > Maybe; the only one I can see in the archive is the one that has an
> > unanswered question.  If I request a patchwork account, would I be
> > able to do this?  (I don't have/use/know anything about pwclient.)
>
> If it still works the same, then create patchwork account yourself with
> same e-mail address you're using when sending patches and you should be
> able to update your patches.
>
> > The others don't appear to be there; maybe they got merged in since I
> > last looked, in which case I apologize for grumbling prematurely.  (My
> > oe-core effort is unfunded so I only get a chance to poke at it for a
> > couple days every couple weeks, and only see the emails during the off
> > times.)
>

I could find 3 patches:
http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe/list/?submitter=1693&state=*&archive=both


>
> Be aware that oe-core patches are not really tracked on patchwork,
> patchwork is used mostly for meta-* patches.
>
>
> oe-core patches are tracked on a different project:
http://patches.openembedded.org/project/oe-core/list/


Best regards, Frans