I agree that it makes much more sense for an arbitrary organization to
maintain a clone of all the tizen git trees, hosted on their own
servers, and built using their own build system.
Each and every change would add a maintenance cost so attempting to keep
a zero delta should be a goal, but sometimes productization requires hot
fixes that might take some time to debate and work through an open
source submission process like Tizen. The productization activity might
also have a need to mostly freeze the entire codebase and take on the
cost of backporting critical fixes or even a few features where the open
project has decided to move on to new versions of packages.
--rusty
On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 08:35 -0700, Hanchett, Paul wrote:
> Hi Gents,
>
>
> I'm *very* new to Tizen/IVI, so I'm still finding my way around,
> but...
>
>
> ... a formalized and supported (=logistical resources?) for
> customers to get to create their own branches ...
>
>
> I thought the idea of git was that an organization should make a local
> master repository and do their own work against that repository,
> updating to the project master as they have proven additions and
> fixes?
>
>
> Is there a Best Practices document that describes how to use the Tizen
> repository together and what the work flow should look like?
>
>
> TIA,
> Paul
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Paul Hanchett
>
> -------------------
> Infotainment Engineer
> MSX on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover
> One World Trade Center, 121 Southwest Salmon Street, 11th Floor,
> Portland, Oregon, 97204
>
> Email: [email protected]
> -------------------
>
> Business Details:
> Jaguar Land Rover Limited
> Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF
> Registered in England No: 1672070
>
>
> On 16 August 2013 19:04, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am wondering if there could be a formalized and supported
> (=logistical resources?) for customers to get to create their
> own branches - so they can make up their own schedules and
> plans and decide which "stable release" version of a TizenIVI
> release to snapshot as their "alpha and move towards
> production".
>
> ...alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Abramski,
> Adam M
> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 3:06 AM
> To: Graydon, Tracy; Zheng, Yanshuang; VanCutsem, Geoffroy;
> Ylinen, Mikko
> Cc: [email protected]
>
> Subject: RE: Tizen IVI repositories enabled by default in the
> image
>
> Comments in line
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graydon,
> Tracy
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 11:55 AM
> To: Zheng, Yanshuang; VanCutsem, Geoffroy; Ylinen, Mikko
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Tizen IVI repositories enabled by default in the
> image
>
> This is a perfect time to re-ask the question that Geoffroy
> asked the other day...
>
> Should we change the default repo to be daily instead of
> snapshots? If QA is testing daily images against snapshot
> repos because that is the default, that's a good argument for
> changing the default to daily.
>
> The question then becomes: how do our customers use the daily
> images? I am willing to bet they really don't want the
> bleeding (possibly broken) edge.
> In fact, the official stance is that, in general, we don't
> really want anyone other than developers using snapshots. The
> are there for engineering and development use and convenience.
> Customers and others use them at their own risk.
>
> Adam - I would agree with both of these comments.
>
> Based on that assumptionŠassuming it is validŠI think we
> should default to daily instead.
>
> Anyone think differently? Thoughts?
>
>
>
> On 8/16/13 2:57 AM, "Zheng, Yanshuang"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > [Yanshuang] 'zypper up' is tested but at a weekly basis
> instead of
> >> > daily. Often QA install the latest daily build in last
> week(e.g. US
> >> > Thursday) and then test 'zypper up' on this Thursday or
> Friday(PRC).
> >> > That is to ensure system upgrade to latest snapshot could
> be
> >> > conducted smoothly and the upgrade won't break system
> startup.
> >
> >> Thanks for confirming this Yanshuang. Wouldn't it make more
> sense to
> >>test updates to the latest daily build instead of snapshot?
> Correct
> >>me if I'm wrong but snapshot could be pretty broken so it
> could make
> >>it hard to verify whether it's the build itself which is
> broken or
> >>the upgrade process?
> >>
> >
> >[Yanshuang] "upgrade to latest snapshot" is because,
> currently the
> >default enabled repo for all daily releases is the snapshot
> repo.
> >QA test this without any repo re-configuration, assuming
> changing repo
> >configuration is not a common case for general users.
> >We are OK to test against daily repo if there is kinds of
> feedback from
> >customers.
> >And if the default enabled repo is switched to the daily one,
> our
> >'zypper up' would test the upgrade against daily repo.
> >_______________________________________________
> >IVI mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/ivi
>
> _______________________________________________
> IVI mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/ivi
> _______________________________________________
> IVI mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/ivi
> _______________________________________________
> IVI mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/ivi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IVI mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/ivi
_______________________________________________
IVI mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/ivi
