On 4/29/21 12:37 PM, Randy MacLeod wrote: > On 2021-04-27 1:06 p.m., Khem Raj wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:48 AM Randy MacLeod >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> I've CCed some of the maintainers of more widely used Yocto layers >>> to get comments on about tagging. Please add in people who I may >>> have missed. >>> >>> >>> For a while now, oe-core has had a yocto-X.Y tag in addition to the >>> release branch name. This helps users easily find the exact commit >>> that corresponds to the say 3.3 GA release. There have been some >>> omissions in tagging but Michael and Richard are adjusting the >>> release process so that tagging will happen more consistently. >>> >>> Most yocto layers have not adopted the tagging perhaps because they >>> weren't aware of it so that's why I'm writing this email. Tagging >>> will make it easy to find the first commit for a specific release >>> independent of what the branching policy of a layer is. Layer >>> maintainers sometimes create the release branch in advance of >>> when oe-core is released and by adding the tag, it would make it >>> clear when the layer considers content to be officially released. >>> Of course it's up to users to decide if they are going to follow >>> the HEAD of a branch or, for some reason, stick with a tagged commit >>> or private branch off that commit. >>> >> I think this could be a good thing, although it does put the burden on >> release maintainers. mostly they >> test against the tip of the release branch, So if yocto project >> testing is including these layers for wider >> testing and can then recommend a validated commit then perhaps this >> could be made viable. > > > How about: > > https://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/commit/?id=71b546ed8595b14d29efc1e8b951f8c845ad10c4 >
The implication here is that the Yocto Project has run QA if this is in response to Khem's statement above, Or am I miss interpreting your recommendation? Now regarding meta-security, I would not use a "yocto" named tag. I am not a fan of an upstream Project telling me to use their tagging scheme. If I do that, then I need to be open to WindRriver, MontaVista, Petalinux, Mentor, Enea, Arm and etc tags. Those Companies send me patches. Does RedHat tell the kernel.org to use their tags? No, its the other way around. If I would tag meta-security, I would have to write up the meaning of it and possible a policy/process around it so if a new maintainer came along they could continue that process or do something else. This is a hard sell as I am not seeing the benefit to this layer in adopting a tagging scheme. - Armin > > ../Randy > >> >>> Are there any concerns about attempting to do this for yocto-3.3 >>> and later? >>> >>> Should we make it a requirement for yocto compliance? >>> Should it be a feature tested by the yocto compliance script? >>> >>> >>> >>> Here's what's in oe-core and bitbake now: >>> $ cd .../oe-core.git >>> $ git tag -l | grep yocto-3 >>> yocto-3.0 >>> yocto-3.1 >>> yocto-3.1.7 >>> yocto-3.2 >>> yocto-3.2.1 >>> yocto-3.3 >>> >>> $ cd bitbake/ >>> $ git tag -l | grep yocto-3 >>> yocto-3.0 >>> yocto-3.1 >>> yocto-3.2 >>> >>> -- >>> # Randy MacLeod >>> # Wind River Linux > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#53331): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/53331 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/82408504/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
