On 03/16/2018 08:50 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > On Tue 2018-02-20 @ 11:41:15 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> The separate layers and maintainership is the way we designed the new >> layered approach to OE to scale. > > I only became an active user of OE after the OE-classic split; I had used it a > couple times during the OE-classic era, but not very deeply. Therefore: my > apologies for not having a fuller understanding of the issue(s). > > Would anyone like to make an honest, unbiased attempt at answering: > 1. What problem(s) was the post-OE-classic split attempting to solve?
The all in one approach is untestable. > 2. Did it work? Can it be said that the problem(s) the OE-split was attempting > to solve, have actually been solved by the split? (and, if new problems > arose as a result of this split, were they small an manageable relative to > the pre-split problems?) > OE-core is well tested, and that has taken a lot of resources. There are not dedicated resources to test much beyond this. The real problem is how to get resources to test layers beyond oe-core. And maintain testing of oe-core. Philip > The experiment to decide whether we need more splits or consolidation has > already been done. Have the results been sufficiently understood? > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
