On Sep 11, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Jianxin, > > On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 10:50:50 Jianxun Zhang wrote: >>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 7:34 AM, Saul Wold <s...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 17:02 -0700, Jianxun Zhang wrote: >>>> This change update intel-gpu-tools to 1.15 as a sync-up with >>>> Intel graphic stack 2016 Q2 release. >>>> >>>> This change explicitly sets ${PV} in recipe and renames it >>>> after package name only. By doing so we don't need to enforce >>>> a policy to rename recipe every time we do update. Patch >>>> speaks itself. >>> >>> This is wrong! >>> >>> The whole point of naming the recipe as ${PN}_${PV} is to remove the >>> need to update PV in the recipe. >>> >>> Yes checksums need to be updated on a regular basis, there are tools >>> like devtool that can assist with this. >>> >>> The OpenEmbedded standard is for $PN_$PV.bb filename this also assists >>> in understand quickly what version a particular recipe is. There are >>> also limited cases where 2 different $PVs are needed for some reasons. >>> >>> Please resubmit this as a normal update with $PV contained in the file >>> name. >>> >>> Please see: https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Best_Known_Methods_(BKMs >>> )_for_Package_Updating >> >> Saul, >> I think the drawback of current procedure is it causes git “resets" history >> on recipe since new recipe when a renamed or git mv-ed recipe also have too >> much modifications. I don’t think git really tracks moving or renaming: > > It doesn't reset history. You're right that it doesn't track renames - that's > because rename detection is done whenever git looks at a change, not when the > change is applied. If you want to see the full history including renames, use > the --follow option. Paul, I just come back from a vacation and run "git log --follow new_renamed_file" in the test project created with procedure in my previous reply. It doesn’t show history before renaming the file in that case. The procedure simulates a routine update (renaming & modifying recipe in a single commit) but won’t always give the expected result in git history. I think the first half of your comment could be the answer. git doesn’t track rename, so --follow should not have more magic in this case.
> > Saul is correct, use of PV in the recipe filename is standard OE practice and > we don't want to be deviating from that - besides which I'm not sure we have > much to gain by doing so. If you defined this as a standard in OE universe, no more argument is needed. I just want to point out any inconsistent outcome from the standard practice which may be out of expectation sometimes, assuming my test is valid. Last time I followed the policy to use git mv and submit a patch to update a short recipe in meta-intel, we had same confusion when Saul didn’t see renaming info in patch in review. (I can’t remember which recipe however). I will submit a V2 back to normal. Thanks lot! > > Cheers, > Paul > > -- > > Paul Eggleton > Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ meta-intel mailing list meta-intel@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel