Hi Richard and Alex,
On 10/14/24 13:34, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 12:21 +0200, Quentin Schulz via lists.openembedded.org
wrote:
Hi Katariina,
On 10/8/24 8:33 AM, Katariina Lounento via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
From: Katariina Lounento <[email protected]>
The list of valid statuses (`upstream_status_literal_valid_status`) was
missing "Inactive-Upstream", which caused patchtest to fail the test
test_patch.TestPatch.test_upstream_status_presence_format for patches
containing lines like:
+Upstream-Status: Inactive-Upstream [lastrelease: 2013 lastcommit: 2013]
with the error:
FAIL: test Upstream-Status presence: Upstream-Status is in incorrect
format (test_patch.TestPatch.test_upstream_status_presence_format)
"Inactive-Upstream" is documented in the Yocto Project and OpenEmbedded
Contributor Guide [1]:
Inactive-Upstream [lastcommit: when (and/or) lastrelease: when]
The upstream is no longer available. This typically means a
defunct project where no activity has happened for a long time —
measured in years. To make that judgement, it is recommended to
look at not only when the last release happened, but also when
the last commit happened, and whether newly made bug reports and
merge requests since that time receive no reaction. It is also
recommended to add to the patch description any relevant links
where the inactivity can be clearly seen.
I'm wondering if we simply shouldn't remove this status?
We (as a project) have had this discussion before. There are indeed two
sides to this and I can see them both.
I believe even if the project is inactive, we should still aim at
submitting patches in the event the project starts again, or maybe it's
just that nobody has sent a patch for years and the SW works good enough
for all people involved.
Some of the inactive software has no place to actually visibly share
patches. The other advantage to having a separate state is that it more
easily allows people to focus on the areas where we can make a
difference. It also gives us a big hint about which software poses a
different set of risks if there is no active maintenance being done on
it.
Overall, I think having the state does have some benefits. I do agree
we should submit where we possibly can though.
On 10/14/24 13:52, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 at 12:21, Quentin Schulz via
lists.openembedded.org
<[email protected]> wrote:
I believe even if the project is inactive, we should still aim at
submitting patches in the event the project starts again, or maybe it's
just that nobody has sent a patch for years and the SW works good enough
for all people involved.
What do you think?
As someone (you could say, the only one) who actually does the work of
submitting the existing Pending patches in oe-core and assignes
Inactive-Upstream, I strongly object.
Inactive-Upstream is not assigned lightly, and we do it only for
projects which are clearly abandoned, and have tons of open PRs and
issues that no one reacts to and in all likelihood never will.
If the project starts up again (e.g. makes a release or someone
discovers a promising active fork), then the patches can be easily
reassigned to a status appropriate for an active project and submitted
with the knowledge that someone will actually look at them and act on
them.
Alex
Sorry for a delayed reply, but based on your replies I thought a
conclusion was already reached that the inactive upstream status is
useful. And regardless, I think patchtest should work according to the
currently documented conventions.
It seems the patch hasn't landed in openembedded-core or poky master or
master-next though, so please let me know if there's anything that
should be changed.
(I just checked the patch still applies cleanly.)
Thanks,
--
Katariina Lounento
[email protected]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#206584):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/206584
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108884475/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
