Hi Richard, CCing the docs@ mailing list on this part of the thread.
On 12/9/21 6:05 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2021-12-09 at 15:48 +0100, Konrad Weihmann wrote: >> I support that idea. >> >> as said in the other ML conversation the format should look like >> >> Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream [<last release date>(, <last commit >> date>)] >> >> with the part in the ()-brackets being opinion, as we mainly aim for >> using releases anyway. >> This time I would actually have it as much machine readable as possible, >> so it might be suitable to dictate a yyyymmdd date format pattern here. > I'm in favour of adding the new category and I agree some kind of dates in the > [reason] space would be nice to have. > > For the purposes of a patch upstream, the last commit date is much more > important than a release. I don't think this needs to be machine readable as a > definition, it is better we have the appropriate info. Year is probably as > much > as we need since inactive software is usually measured in years. > > We may need to put some kind of guide in the docs about what "inactive" looks > like. Are you suggesting to expand the official Yocto Project docs on this topic? Actually, I only see https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev-manual/common-tasks.html#patching-code which explains the use of patches. There is much more content indeed in https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines Cheers Michael. -- Michael Opdenacker, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1392): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1392 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/87612566/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
