On 14.12.21 19:31, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 07:08:59PM +0100, Konrad Weihmann wrote:
On 14.12.21 19:05, Ross Burton wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 17:46, Konrad Weihmann <[email protected]> wrote:
If we're adding a new one, can I suggest we remove Accepted?
A patch is either submitted to upstream but hasn't been merged
(Submitted), or the patch is taken from upstream (Backport). Accepted
No I think Accepted has its place - this is for the limbo state when
upstream merged the patch but no release has been made so far.
So I would keep it
If it's merged the patch is a backport.
no quite :-)
to quote the docu:
Backport
- Backported from new upstream version, because we are at a fixed version,
include upstream version info
which implies that there is an upstream *version* available
containing that fix.
But in the end your are totally right, if it has been merged it's a
backport, so we should also adjust the documentation of Backport to
not mention a version as a prerequisite
I think the confusion is with the "version" - it could be interpreted as a
new commit in project's SCM, or a full proper release.
To Ross' point - if you can point to a public commit where the patch was
merged, it is a Backport, even if the corresponding recipe only tracks proper
releases and cannot be updated yet.
I would propose to change Backport definition to
- Backported from new upstream version/revision
just to be clear on the vague term of "version".
And if we do that Accepted can be easily dropped
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#1401):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1401
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]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
