On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Otavio Salvador
otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br
wrote:
The 'BRANCH' variable name has no explicit relation
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 23:03 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Otavio Salvador
otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 23:03 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Otavio Salvador
otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com
On 2015-08-21 05:58 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br wrote:
The 'BRANCH' variable name has no explicit relation with the
SRC_URI. Using 'SRC_BRANCH' makes it
The 'BRANCH' variable name has no explicit relation with the
SRC_URI. Using 'SRC_BRANCH' makes it more obvious and easier to
identify.
This patch makes the use consistent across the metadata.
Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br
---
On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br wrote:
The 'BRANCH' variable name has no explicit relation with the
SRC_URI. Using 'SRC_BRANCH' makes it more obvious and easier to
identify.
Look good to me, just may be avoid ‘_’ and call it SRCBRANCH
This patch
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br wrote:
The 'BRANCH' variable name has no explicit relation with the
SRC_URI. Using 'SRC_BRANCH' makes it more obvious and easier to
identify.
Look good
