[meta-intel] [PATCH 3/3] libva-intel-driver: Update to 1.6.0

[Lim, Siew Hoon]

> >
> >> Missing Upstream-Status: Backport.
> >
> > Sorry. Ok, I will add in.
> > I'm now a bit confused. Which upstream status I should be using Backport or
> Accepted?
> > Read in www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
> >
> > Now I felt sound like the accepted should be using.
> > Backport also correct as well, I really backport the fixed from upstream
> master into this fixed version.
> 
> I don't think your choice here matters, the important thing is that a future
> maintainer upgrading this recipe can see that this patch might/should be
> included in a future release: either choice works for that. FWIW, I think
> "accepted" is the next step from "submitted": a status update for a yocto/oe
> patch that was also sent to upstream mailing list or issue tracker. "backport"
> on the other hand is a commit already in upstream that was then backported
> to yocto/oe.

Thank you for clarify. Now I think much clear what upstream status I should be using.

> 
> > Is this information status needed like below:
> >
> > Upstream-Status: Accepted
> > - The code fixed already accepted in upstream, and expected to be in next
> release.
> > - Currently backport this code fixed from upstream into 1.6.0 fixed version.
> > - Bugzilla status for this issue is closed fixed.
> > - Expected version info? Can I put wait for next release or totally skip first?
> > (Because I'm really sure what is next release version in
> > libva-intel-driver. It could be 1.6.1 or 1.7.0. This really depends on
> > next release from libva-intel-driver.)
> 
> If you know the version number the commit is (or will be) in, please include
> the version number. If the code is not committed upstream yet and you have
> a bug URL, please include the URL.

Ok. 

Thanks.
...siewhoon