2010/11/5 Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]>: > Hello. > > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 21:00, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >> >> That is already being discussed and decided. See the following previous >> topics >> on the mailing list... > > To clear this up a bit. There can't be a real decision for now. Not all > developers have been present at the OEDEM and we haven't discussed every > detail > their either. :) > > Most, if not all, people liked the idea during the OEDEM discussions, but we > would need more input on problem that this may rise. As it stands I'm happy to > see Khem coming up to put this on the ml. :) > > One I currently see is how we can keep it all working when the layers are > maintained in different places and what kid of combinational explosion we will > have with layers in different places. >
Good points! To keep things working I feel it is important to minimize the inter layer dependencies (and make the ones that exist explicit). My suggestion is that every layer has a maintainer/custodian/owner or whatever name you want to give it who is responsible to keep the layer in good shape. Presumably this means we get a structure where there are two versions of a layer: the last validated/integrated/accepted one and the working one. Frans _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
