On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:47:20 Martin Jansa wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 07:49:50AM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > Hi Trevor, > > > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:19:35 Trevor Woerner wrote: > > > On 11/26/15 16:00, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > > > I'm also > > > > trying to ensure that the patch validation is generic enough so it can > > > > live in OE-Core, and thus we can easily update and refine it over time > > > > in > > > > line with the code itself as well as encourage submitters to use the > > > > script on their own changes before sending. > > > > > > This all sounds like an improvement and is therefore a step in the right > > > direction :-) > > > > > > A while back I had the idea of "porting" the kernel's "checkpatch.pl" to > > > The Yocto Project (it was around the same time that I was trying to > > > float the whole "Maintainers File" idea too, since I was also trying to > > > re-purpose "get-maintainer.pl" as well). About one minute into that > > > effort I realized the existing *.bb files were all over the place in > > > terms of the order of statements and the order of the blocks of > > > statements. At that time I found one recipe style guide from OE, and > > > another one from The Yocto Project, each of which described a slightly > > > different preference. So I asked on the mailing list and quickly > > > discovered that both groups prefer a different style. > > > > > > I'm not saying this job isn't worth doing, but I am pointing out there's > > > the potential for feathers to be ruffled on both sides if someone tries > > > to produce a definitive style guide for recipe files and then enforces > > > it in an automated way. Since it is the OpenEmbedded Project's job to > > > provide the recipes for The Yocto Project, I'm guessing this question > > > needs to be decided by them? If that sounds reasonable, then maybe The > > > Yocto Project needs to acquiesce to OE's decision? > > > > I don't think there's that much of a division. I don't recall if it was > > you > > that raised it at the time but the issue of having two style guides did > > get > > rectified - I changed the one on the Yocto Project wiki to simply be a > > link to the OE style guide in June last year. It certainly didn't come > > about through a conscious decision to have a different style. > > > > However there is a minor disagreement over indentation for shell functions > > between OE-Core and other layers - this persists because of the > > backporting > > pain a blanket replacement would potentially lead to. As I recall this did > > get discussed at the OE TSC level. I think that's one thing we could just > > not evaluate (or make an option) until such time as we resolve the > > difference - and I do mean to see it resolved at some point in the > > future. > > Using consistent indentation (4 spaces) at least for new metadata would > be step in right direction. > > With the amount of changes which are backported to older releases I > still don't see this "backporting pain" argument. Doing it just before > the release is of course useful, because e.g. now more changes will be > backported to Jethro than to Fido or Dizzy. So having consistent > indentation in Jethro and master would prevent 95% of "backporting > pain". Maybe some Yocto 10.0 will finally get the meaning of > "consistent" indentation.
I agree it's not ideal. I said above, I do want to see it resolved. Leaving indentation aside for a moment do you have any comments on my proposal? Thanks, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
