On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 10:52 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On 13-11-13 10:41 AM, Darren Hart wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 10:23 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > >> On 13-11-13 01:59 AM, Darren Hart wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 23:18 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > >>>> On 11/12/2013, 4:27 PM, Darren Hart wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 15:59 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > >>>>>> On 13-11-11 06:25 PM, Darren Hart wrote: > >>>>>>> The following changes since commit > >>>>>>> f1c9080cd27f99700fa59b5375d1ddd0afe625ad: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> meta/common-pc: add missing dependencies for BRCMSMAC > >>>>>>> (2013-11-03 23:01:35 -0500) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> are available in the git repository at: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> git://git.yoctoproject.org/linux-yocto-contrib dvhart/3.10/meta > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/linux-yocto-contrib/log/?h=dvhart/3.10/meta > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Darren Hart (4): > >>>>>>> minnow: Remove eg20t > >>>>>>> minnow-io: Add feature for MinnowBoard GPIO keys and LEDs > >>>>>>> minnow: Remove old patches for Ethernet and GPIO > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To confirm. We still want standard/minnow to contain these changes ? > >>>>>> That's what the meta data tells me, but I wanted to be sure. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, the new BSP will use standard/base. There is no real need to have a > >>>>> standard/minnow branch as far as I can see. > >>>> > >>>> That's what I was wondering and thinking as well. When I was merging the > >>>> changes I noticed the minnow-standard.scc still had a branch statement. > >>>> Did you want to quickly roll that removal into this series while you > >>>> are updating the meta data ? > >>> > >>> I hadn't thought of this. I thought the purpose of the branch statement > >>> in the minnow BSP scc was to provide a starting point to add anything > >>> the kernel BSP or the recipe BSP added to the kernel sources - > >>> independent of whether or not the standard/branch actually existed. > >> > >> The branch will be created when the statement is processed. If anything > >> happens after the statement, the changes go on that branch. > >> > >> So by just having it there, you are creating a placeholder branch. > >> > >> It is trivial to create the branch later if there really is custom > >> content. So if you don't want to have it sitting there, then drop > >> the branch statement for now. > >> > >> There are definitely two schools of thought on this. Those that want > >> to just build from a common branch, and those that follow the > >> 'branches are simple and cheap' and they document what boards are > >> supported .. so use them and be happy. > >> > >> The tools support both, and we can do either. In different contexts > >> I'm opinionated one way or the other :) > > > > > > In that case, having fewer IA branches is more in keeping with the > > Intel's goals for BSP management. Single-Image, single sources, no > > vendor trees. I'll respin the series, dropping the branch in the minnow > > scc files. > > > > Some documentation needs to be updated... I'll have to own that. > > And should I expect a v3 with the removal of the branch ? >
Yup, that's what I meant by respinning the series above. Will get that to you today... hopefully during the morning meeting block. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ linux-yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto
