On 12/13/2011 09:27 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On 11-12-13 6:46 PM, Darren Hart wrote: >> We hit another lock-step SRCREV bug earlier on the FRI2 BSP. This was >> due mostly to my pushing the efi changes to meta-intel too early - but, >> it highlights a maintenance step that I believe could be eliminated for >> most boards. >> >> We have a yocto/standard/fri2 branch, but it doesn't contain any >> additional changes over yocto/standard/base. If we were to make >> yocto/standard/base the default for KBRANCH, shouldn't we be able to >> eliminate all the BSP branches that are identical to >> yocto/standard/base? This would significantly reduce the number of >> SRCREV updates that are required and likely reduce the number of >> Autobuilder failures we experience as a result. Seems like it would also >> help make the git tree easier to deal with. >> >> Any opinions here? > > It's a valid config, and something that works now. So there's no > reason to not use it. New branches can be created IF a board really > does need to merge conflicting patches. The emgd stuff was a problem > and required branches, but if we have nothing like that, squashing the > branches is a nice simplification. >
Hrm maybe I missed that in the fri2 branches. It does need emgd, so I'll double check that. > Cheers, > > Bruce > >> > -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
