On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 09:43 +1200, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Friday, 10 September 2021 19:54:11 NZST Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > Do we change the master branch to something else? I personally have a > > > > preference for "devel" over "main" regardless of what others are doing > > > > as it matches what it is in our case. Changing that alone is days of > > > > work for me trying to get all our automation to deal with it. > > > > > > If the master branch gets renamed, what about yocto-buildhistory, > > > yocto-buildstats and yocto-testresults? Would master branches or tags > > > get renamed as well? Is this part of the day's worth of work you > > > mentioned? > > > > > > Would the Yocto Project enforce a renaming in all the repos they host? > > > > > > What about layer-index? > > > > All good questions. The days of work I was mentioning would cover some of > > this but there is a lot to do, more than people realise. > > It's not readily visible in the UI, but the layer index already has an > internal means of specifying an alternative branch name that can be set by > admins on a per layer-branch basis. I deliberately haven't exposed it as I > thought it was better that people keep things simple and just use the same > scheme as OE-Core for their branches, but the mechanism exists. We could also > fairly easily add automatic mapping in the layer index code if we choose a > standard name to replace master, as well as changing the name shown in the UI > (and change the assumptions that "master" is the main branch, there are a few > sprinkled through the code). I think even if we do nothing else we'll have to > address those assumptions as there will probably be layer maintainers who > want > to change (if they have not done so already). If it's not clear, I can > volunteer to take care of this ;) > > > I remembered what I was missing too: > > > > j) Convert to SPDX license names > > > > We should really switch to using SPDX license names in the LICENSE field > > directly and be able to drop the current SPDX mapping code. > > This I'm not sure of. Are these mappings costing us much? AFAICT we'd only > gain a bit of code simplification at the expense of making things a little > bit > harder for our users.
I'm really trying to say it is another change we could potentially make (in the spirit of the rest of the list). The license functions are like spaghetti and trying to fix up the tests to work after I tried to resolve the "or-later" changes was a nightmare. I think to move forward the code does need to be simplified and this is one way we could do that (else every entry into license code has to run through remapping just in case). If the remapping moves to a tool/script to help people change the license field to SPDX format, that could help so there are ways this could move forward yet help. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1317): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1317 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/85488159/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-architecture+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
