From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ww0-f54.google.com (mail-ww0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6BBE01370 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 04:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by wgbdq12 with SMTP id dq12so1470275wgb.11 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:22:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.139.25 with SMTP id b25mr611124wej.28.1328790132131; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:22:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.1.36] (ip545070eb.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl. [84.80.112.235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n5sm7318110wiw.7.2012.02.09.04.22.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:22:11 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) From: Koen Kooi In-Reply-To: <4F3302D3.7070507@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:22:10 +0100 Message-Id: References: <4F323C52.8030304@intel.com> <20120208100718.GB8335@giant> <4F32C595.4040508@linux.intel.com> <4F3302D3.7070507@linux.intel.com> To: Saul Wold X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl1nAo9sCw/Q6JJae13zcvBm85ztqVm487K3KVZCmBwUfDpfPUuI6auQpw3rIYvC+AqjU5p Cc: Yocto Project Discussion Subject: Re: Upstream-Status finally @ 100% X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:22:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Op 9 feb. 2012, om 00:18 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven: > On 02/08/2012 01:26 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote: >>=20 >>> If the author of curl would like to review and/or implement >>> modification for OE that would be awesome, feel free to share the >>> patches with them. >>=20 >> I am the maintainer of curl. >>=20 >> The curl patches Bj=F6rn mentioned are clearly not written in way = intended >> to be "upstreamable" so they cannot be accepted by the curl project = and >> nobody has tried to. >>=20 > I am sure there are many patches like that in OE, they are written, = tested and then forgotten about, our goal here is to not let them get = forgotten. >=20 >> This said, at least one of the patches fixes a problem that still = exists >> upstream but the yocto patch [*] is made in such a hard-coded way = it'd >> have to be seriously edited to get accepted. The flaw has not even = been >> discussed with or mentioned to the curl project AFAICR... >>=20 >> So, room for improvements! >>=20 >> [*] =3D >> = http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/recipes-support/c= url/curl/noldlibpath.patch >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > Daniel, >=20 > I think Khem has already said that we are taking incremental steps = here, as I mentioned in my prior email, we have over 1200 patches = lurking around in OE currently, initially we have about 460 as marked as = pending. I find the 'pending' confusing, is it 'pending submission' or 'pending = approval'? I'm marking patches in meta-oe with 'Upstream-status: = Unknown' as default instead of 'Pending' to make it a bit clearer. And = patches marked 'inappropriate' won't go in, it's 'rejected', 'unknown' = or 'needs work' in those cases. I'm not going to guess what upstream = might think of it, since I can't speak for them. All patches in OE-core now have an Upstream-status, but how many have an = *incorrect* Upstream-status? I suspect only a small percentage, but I = think it's worth rethinking the lingo used to be clearer to non-native = speakers like me. regards, Koen=