On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Eric Bénard <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Otavio, > > Le Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:46:55 -0200, > Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit : >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Eric Bénard <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Le Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:41:34 -0200, >> > Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> Those are all available at 'danny-next' branch and it fixes many >> >> issues found since the branching and also does upgrade some BSP >> >> packages to 1.1.0. >> >> >> > please don't remove 12.09.01 recipes in danny : this is a stable >> > release so please don't break users' layers which could have bbappend >> > on the actual recipes. >> > The goal of a release branch is to make a snapshot of what is stable >> > at the day of the release and then to get only fixes, not to track >> > everything which goes into master. >> >> Part of me agrees with you; part does not. >> >> I agree that the upgrade to 1.1.0 might break some users BSP at same >> time the BSP has been upgraded by Freescale due they've fixed known >> issues and those might be important to customers. So we have a >> dead-lock here :-) >> > problem is that this will break any bbappend and any patch peoples may > have in their layers for their custom boards which are based on danny > and so on 12.09.01. > > IMHO, a stable branch is the snapshot of versions which are considered > to be stable at the date of the release. During the stable branch's > life, if updates or bug fixes are available for the versions _already_ > in the stable branch you can of course apply them to the stable branch. > 12.09.01 was considered to be stable at the time of the danny release > and allows to generate a working configuration for i.MX6 when 1.1.0 > was released after danny was created as a stable branch and thus is the > right BSP to use for the _next_ stable branch. > > If a stable branch is a branch which can get all the upgrades from > master whenever a BSP is upgraded, then you will always have good > reason to pick up any patch from master so a stable branch is not > necessary and it is better to say to users : we are a moving target, if > you want stability, stick to a commit hash and not to a branch (or > create your own branch based on master and cherry-pick the patches you > want). > Of course you can argue there may not be many users of the stable > branch (and certainly even less with i.MX6 boards), but you already > thought that at the time of denzil and that broke at least 2 i.MX53 BSP > I maintain for 2 different customers which were based on denzil so yes, > there can be some users of the stable branches of meta-fsl-arm. > If you merge 1.1.0 in danny, the problem is the message you send to > users : you need to warn people that meta-fsl-arm's stable branches can > receive major upgrades and thus break their own layers so that users > can take their responsibility and choose either to work on a fixed > commit hash or to fork meta-fsl-arm for their own project. > > If you do a git diff master danny-next you will see there is nearly no > reason to have 2 branches ;-)
Ok; I agree with you. I will redo danny-next and send a new e-mail so people can check its contents. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
