On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 15:00 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 13:39, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > This kind of response from you is frustrating. Trying to ask any > > question results in a response like this and I don't think its > > productive or helpful. > > Can we try to get something done instead of this useless type of discussion?
I really don't know what Chris is/isn't prepared to do in future to ensure this doesn't happen again but I'm doing what I can in that regard. I'm pleased to report Poky's copy of bitbake is now much more in sync with bitbake master as of earlier today. This has resulted in some issues for Poky but thats life and we're working through them, its not a problem. I've asked Chris what the status of his poky-sync branch is and assuming some further testing pans out I think that will get merged into bitbake master soon. This leaves some small details to sort out as I think there are still some tweaks bitbake upsteam needs from Poky. I'm trying to work out those details and will follow up in other emails. I've already started some of the discussion in the logging thread for one of the areas there are differences in approach. I'm also going to look at getting back the XMLRPC interfaces and abstraction that the removal of triggered this discussion. There does appear to be some differences in opinion on the future of bitbake from the server/UI perspective and I will do what I can to ensure we all have common goals. I've also agreed that I'm going to pay close attention to the bitbake-dev list. I've asked that any major roadmap/architecture changes do get discussed there. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Bitbake-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-dev
