-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09-02-11 11:42, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 11:18, Koen Kooi wrote: >> On 09-02-11 10:56, Stefan Schmidt wrote: >> >>>> 2. Do not delete the release branch after 2011.03 will be released (just >>>> like >>>> it was done for 2010.12), but let it live and allow developpers >>>> committing >>>> bug-fixes (backporting choosen things?) reported back by OE users (some >>>> would >>>> would be happy to contribute this way) >>> >>> That was already discussed. We make a tag with the release rev from which >>> can be >>> branched again _if_ people are stepping up to support this branch on a mid >>> or >>> long term base. >>> >>> The branch Tom is using until the release is pretty useless froma history >>> point >>> of view (all changes must be in master as well). When he thinks the release >>> is >>> good enough the tag gets added and the old branch deleted. For the last >>> release >>> nobody cared to support it afterwards with bugfixes so no release branch was >>> created. >>> >>> I'm thinking about this for the upcoming release. If all works well we will >>> base >>> a product on it which I would like to support directly from such a release >>> branch. >>> >>> The hard part is how people could decide on pooling resources on this. >>> Defining >>> goals for such a branch and stuff. E.g. only take serious fixes? What about >>> package updates? Security fixes? changes on the toolchain or classes? >>> >>> This is up to the group who wants to support such a branch. Anyone else >>> interested in doing this for 2011-03? >> >> I discussed this with Philip and Graeme and the idea is to retire >> angstrom-2008.1.conf into that branch. I still have customers (you >> indirectly :)) > > Well aware of it. :) > >> using that, so having it in that branch would be very neat. > > That sounds pretty good to me. I wanted to move on after this release anyway. > Angstrom 2010 based on OE-Core would be my favourite. :)
Angstrom 2010 based on yocto is looking better each day, I just fixed the last 2 bugs preventing meta-toolchain from building. We just need get thru the breakage associated with the yocto -> oe-core transition :) > Does this mean you would like to get some "final" fixes into such branch as > well? If we would need to think about what we would accept in there. I suspect I'll need to fix bugs in TI stuff for that branch, but I don't want to have that branch turn in to a "oe-core is too scary, we'll develop in here" type of thing. I like Esbens idea of stable branch management, but that might be too strict for others. regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFNUnh/MkyGM64RGpERAusnAJsHM1GVb7kosWmY69NooAnvQaNQTQCbBeqe 5/Je8zmoyp6lWwsBuxBHD68= =hqIT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
