On Wed, 2020-07-15 at 09:09 -0700, akuster wrote: > Well, as I see it, the LF will make a ruling and then the Yocto > Project with have to follow. If OE decides not to change then this > put the two projects at odds.
To be really clear, whilst you keep saying this, I have heard of no such plans from the LF and I have asked. Yes, the LF is a strong believer in diversity and does take these issues seriously but as I understand it, it is for the individual LF projects to find their way in this as there is no "one size fits all" solution. I expect there will be some guidance but the decisions rest with the TSCs, the OE one for git.oe.org and YP one for git.yp.org. What may also be a bigger issue is member companies placing requirements on the project. > Since we have deferred most issues regarding repos to the Maintainers > of those repos, so I would say we see what the maintainers want to > do. If there is no action from the maintainers then this would be > escalated to the appropriate TSC's and then the Board. Community > input is always helpful. For layers not on project infrastructure, yes. For repos hosted on our infrastructure I suspect the TSCs will aim for consistency. We do mirror a number of repos which may be harder. I would like OE and YP to align on whatever we decide to do and whilst I can't say for sure they will, my voice on the TSCs will certainly be aiming for that. > As a maintainer of a few layers, I plan on aligning with what the > kernel does and will be in-sync with the transition plan from OE/YP. To be honest I'm not so interested what the kernel does. I'm more interested in what git (as the tooling we rely upon) does. > I think what the kernel changes its master branch name to we should > follow. Regarding the other name changes, maybe aligning with > terminology changes the kernel does and what is left, maybe we > define those at that time. There is nothing we can do with recipes > that pull from dead projects that use some sort of cloning. I think variable naming is for us to determine as appropriate. The kernel's plans on branch names are one data point, I think git itself is the most relevant. > > 6. Terminology. The Linux kernel project has put out some > > recommendations: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=49decddd39e5f6132ccd7d9fdc3d7c470b0061bb > > We already reference the kernel for processes so what they do, I > think we just pick up unless we don't like what they did. For some things we did look at what the kernel did and did something different for very good reasons. Its a data point but I think its only that. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1138): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1138 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/75515261/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
