[meta-freescale] [for-danny][RFT] Danny bugfixes/improvements from master

[Otavio Salvador]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> wrote:
> Hi Otavio,
>
> Le Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:46:55 -0200,
> Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> wrote:
>> > Le Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:41:34 -0200,
>> > Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>> >> Those are all available at 'danny-next' branch and it fixes many
>> >> issues found since the branching and also does upgrade some BSP
>> >> packages to 1.1.0.
>> >>
>> > please don't remove 12.09.01 recipes in danny : this is a stable
>> > release so please don't break users' layers which could have bbappend
>> > on the actual recipes.
>> > The goal of a release branch is to make a snapshot of what is stable
>> > at the day of the release and then to get only fixes, not to track
>> > everything which goes into master.
>>
>> Part of me agrees with you; part does not.
>>
>> I agree that the upgrade to 1.1.0 might break some users BSP at same
>> time the BSP has been upgraded by Freescale due they've fixed known
>> issues and those might be important to customers. So we have a
>> dead-lock here :-)
>>
> problem is that this will break any bbappend and any patch peoples may
> have in their layers for their custom boards which are based on danny
> and so on 12.09.01.
>
> IMHO, a stable branch is the snapshot of versions which are considered
> to be stable at the date of the release. During the stable branch's
> life, if updates or bug fixes are available for the versions _already_
> in the stable branch you can of course apply them to the stable branch.
> 12.09.01 was considered to be stable at the time of the danny release
> and allows to generate a working configuration for i.MX6 when 1.1.0
> was released after danny was created as a stable branch and thus is the
> right BSP to use for the _next_ stable branch.
>
> If a stable branch is a branch which can get all the upgrades from
> master whenever a BSP is upgraded, then you will always have good
> reason to pick up any patch from master so a stable branch is not
> necessary and it is better to say to users : we are a moving target, if
> you want stability, stick to a commit hash and not to a branch (or
> create your own branch based on master and cherry-pick the patches you
> want).
> Of course you can argue there may not be many users of the stable
> branch (and certainly even less with i.MX6 boards), but you already
> thought that at the time of denzil and that broke at least 2 i.MX53 BSP
> I maintain for 2 different customers which were based on denzil so yes,
> there can be some users of the stable branches of meta-fsl-arm.
> If you merge 1.1.0 in danny, the problem is the message you send to
> users : you need to warn people that meta-fsl-arm's stable branches can
> receive major upgrades and thus break their own layers so that users
> can take their responsibility and choose either to work on a fixed
> commit hash or to fork meta-fsl-arm for their own project.
>
> If you do a git diff master danny-next you will see there is nearly no
> reason to have 2 branches ;-)

Ok; I agree with you.

I will redo danny-next and send a new e-mail so people can check its contents.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio at ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br