[meta-raspberrypi] Stable branch plans

[meta-raspberrypi] Stable branch plans

[Paul Barker]

Hi all,

I've now got a bit of a vested interest in the next meta-raspberrypi
stable branch as I'm planning to use it as a demo platform for our new
Oryx distro.

In the past, the stable branch hasn't been created for a while after
the corresponding oe-core release. The changes made to the stable
branch after this haven't always been as conservative as I'd have
liked as well but that's just one opinion.

I'd like to propose the following for the pyro branch:

* We should create the pyro branch within a week or two of the oe-core
pyro release.

* After the pyro branch is created, changes on the pyro branch should
roughly follow the oe-core stable branch policy
(https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Stable_branch_maintenance#Policies).
I don't think we need to be incredibly strict but I do think we should
avoid making changes which may affect the behaviour of existing
recipes/bbappends. I would like us to keep doing stable-branch kernel
updates and adding new MACHINE definitions where possible without
affecting existing MACHINEs.

This would make the pyro branch perfect for my use case. But obviously
I'm not the meta-raspberrypi maintainer and I'm not the only person
with a use case. So I'd like to know what others think of this, is
this a good plan for meta-raspberrypi stable branches or should we be
more relaxed?

(I raised similar questions in response to another thread but I think
that email may have been missed by a few people so I'm starting a new
thread here in expectation that the oe-core pyro release is imminent)

Thanks,

-- 
Paul Barker
Co-Founder & Principal Engineer
Togán Labs Ltd

Re: [meta-raspberrypi] Stable branch plans

[Trevor Woerner]

It is very likely that I too will be trying to base an rpi-based
"product" off of pyro and hope that it will be as pain-free as
possible :-)

I don't have any past experience with this, so I can't speak to any past issues.

Re: [meta-raspberrypi] Stable branch plans

[Alan Stice]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]

I could also benefit from a quicker stable branch creation and more
stable-branch kernel updates, so +1 from me as a user

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Trevor Woerner <twoerner@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is very likely that I too will be trying to base an rpi-based
> "product" off of pyro and hope that it will be as pain-free as
> possible :-)
>
> I don't have any past experience with this, so I can't speak to any past
> issues.
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1118 bytes --]

Re: [meta-raspberrypi] Stable branch plans

[Khem Raj]

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Paul Barker <pbarker@toganlabs.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've now got a bit of a vested interest in the next meta-raspberrypi
> stable branch as I'm planning to use it as a demo platform for our new
> Oryx distro.
>
> In the past, the stable branch hasn't been created for a while after
> the corresponding oe-core release. The changes made to the stable
> branch after this haven't always been as conservative as I'd have
> liked as well but that's just one opinion.
>
> I'd like to propose the following for the pyro branch:
>
> * We should create the pyro branch within a week or two of the oe-core
> pyro release.
>
> * After the pyro branch is created, changes on the pyro branch should
> roughly follow the oe-core stable branch policy
> (https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Stable_branch_maintenance#Policies).
> I don't think we need to be incredibly strict but I do think we should
> avoid making changes which may affect the behaviour of existing
> recipes/bbappends. I would like us to keep doing stable-branch kernel
> updates and adding new MACHINE definitions where possible without
> affecting existing MACHINEs.
>
> This would make the pyro branch perfect for my use case. But obviously
> I'm not the meta-raspberrypi maintainer and I'm not the only person
> with a use case. So I'd like to know what others think of this, is
> this a good plan for meta-raspberrypi stable branches or should we be
> more relaxed?
>
> (I raised similar questions in response to another thread but I think
> that email may have been missed by a few people so I'm starting a new
> thread here in expectation that the oe-core pyro release is imminent)
>

What do we get by branching early  ?

> Thanks,
>
> --
> Paul Barker
> Co-Founder & Principal Engineer
> Togán Labs Ltd
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: [meta-raspberrypi] Stable branch plans

[Paul Barker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 842 bytes --]

On 3 May 2017 2:41 a.m., "Khem Raj" <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Paul Barker <pbarker@toganlabs.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose the following for the pyro branch:
>
> * We should create the pyro branch within a week or two of the oe-core
> pyro release.

What do we get by branching early  ?


I'd like to be able to say to users that all layers should be on the same
branch, it's confusing if some need to be on pyro and others on master. It
also makes our release much easier as we can point our scripts at the pyro
branch early and not have to worry about future breakage.

I don't mind as much if pyro tracks master for the first few weeks until
things settle down, but I think it's really beneficial to have a pyro
branch in each layer from around the time of the oe-core release.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1590 bytes --]

Re: [meta-raspberrypi] Stable branch plans

[Trevor Woerner]

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Paul Barker <pbarker@toganlabs.com> wrote:
> On 3 May 2017 2:41 a.m., "Khem Raj" <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Paul Barker <pbarker@toganlabs.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to propose the following for the pyro branch:
>>
>> * We should create the pyro branch within a week or two of the oe-core
>> pyro release.
>
> What do we get by branching early  ?
>
>
> I'd like to be able to say to users that all layers should be on the same
> branch, it's confusing if some need to be on pyro and others on master. It
> also makes our release much easier as we can point our scripts at the pyro
> branch early and not have to worry about future breakage.
>
> I don't mind as much if pyro tracks master for the first few weeks until
> things settle down, but I think it's really beneficial to have a pyro branch
> in each layer from around the time of the oe-core release.

+1

Initially we'll have to use meta-raspberrypi master to build with
pyro. But eventually one commit will come along that breaks. Then
we'll have to wait for someone to create the pyro branch then change
our builds. It would be easier if everything is on, and stays on, pyro
from the start.

Also, if, in the future, we wanted to go back in time to recreate an
early build, someone will have to remember that before a certain date
you'll need to use meta-raspberrypi master with oe-core pyro. Or if in
a year from now you wanted to checkout the repositories from June of
this year, it'll be confusing why meta-raspberrypi didn't have a pyro
branch by that point.

Re: [meta-raspberrypi] Stable branch plans

[Andrei Gherzan]

Hello all,

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Paul Barker <pbarker@toganlabs.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've now got a bit of a vested interest in the next meta-raspberrypi
> stable branch as I'm planning to use it as a demo platform for our new
> Oryx distro.
>

I like that most of the people around meta-rpi have direct interest
based on products they maintain / develop. This makes us all closely
evolved.

> In the past, the stable branch hasn't been created for a while after
> the corresponding oe-core release. The changes made to the stable
> branch after this haven't always been as conservative as I'd have
> liked as well but that's just one opinion.

I think we all agree that this is a trade off. We went down the late
branch off strategy because stability was not of highest importance.
And to be honest you can always "know" where to checkout even if you
don't have a branch. I recommend an aggregation repository with
submodules if you want to seal a specific setup.

On the other hand I saw many times people getting confused on what
branch to use. And I do think that the general trend is to match the
branch name across all the layers you are using in your product.

>
> I'd like to propose the following for the pyro branch:
>
> * We should create the pyro branch within a week or two of the oe-core
> pyro release.
>
> * After the pyro branch is created, changes on the pyro branch should
> roughly follow the oe-core stable branch policy
> (https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Stable_branch_maintenance#Policies).
> I don't think we need to be incredibly strict but I do think we should
> avoid making changes which may affect the behaviour of existing
> recipes/bbappends. I would like us to keep doing stable-branch kernel
> updates and adding new MACHINE definitions where possible without
> affecting existing MACHINEs.
>
> This would make the pyro branch perfect for my use case. But obviously
> I'm not the meta-raspberrypi maintainer and I'm not the only person
> with a use case. So I'd like to know what others think of this, is
> this a good plan for meta-raspberrypi stable branches or should we be
> more relaxed?
>
> (I raised similar questions in response to another thread but I think
> that email may have been missed by a few people so I'm starting a new
> thread here in expectation that the oe-core pyro release is imminent)
>

I would vote for this too. Early branch off using stability branches.