> There is a little friction around bitbake at the moment. I think after a > discussion I had with Chris earlier on some things are clearer and its > probably good to summarise how things stand.
Thank You Richard for mail. > Rightly or wrongly, maintainership of a project like bitbake is as much > about socialising changes and getting discussion and agreement on them > as it is about developing code. It eats a lot of time, you don't get > much thanks for it but it does make life smoother in the long run. > I consider myself a maintainer of bitbake So do I - for me you are Bitbake maintainer. And I am fine with having Chris and you as maintainers. > So, bitbake in the future? At present it has bits on berlios (releases, > mailing list and a web manpage) and the git source SCM on > git.openembedded.org. Are we happy with those locations? I find it a bit > confusing... I think that we should replace berlios with redirects to OE infrastructure. Tarballs should be available for download for any 1.8.0+ releases (older ones should not be in use now and can be generated from cgit). Manual available as separate website. I prefer to not host it at Yocto. > There are a bunch of people who can commit to bitbake, some inactive, > some active in different areas with different priorities. I think mine > are clear above, I'd appreciate others to make their objectives clear so > everyone understand people's positions and what people plan and don't > plan to do. I still have r/w to bitbake svn, no idea about git tree. There is no need for it so please remove my write access. If there will be a need for it I will send patches + pull request to proper mailing list. _______________________________________________ Bitbake-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-dev
