[meta-intel] [PATCH] IGT: update 1.14 -> 1.15

[Paul Eggleton]

Hi Jianxin,

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 10:50:50 Jianxun Zhang wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 2016, at 7:34 AM, Saul Wold <sgw at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 17:02 -0700, Jianxun Zhang wrote:
> >> This change update intel-gpu-tools to 1.15 as a sync-up with
> >> Intel graphic stack 2016 Q2 release.
> >> 
> >> This change explicitly sets ${PV} in recipe and renames it
> >> after package name only. By doing so we don't need to enforce
> >> a policy to rename recipe every time we do update. Patch
> >> speaks itself.
> > 
> > This is wrong!
> > 
> > The whole point of naming the recipe as ${PN}_${PV} is to remove the
> > need to update PV in the recipe.
> > 
> > Yes checksums need to be updated on a regular basis, there are tools
> > like devtool that can assist with this.
> > 
> > The OpenEmbedded standard is for $PN_$PV.bb filename this also assists
> > in understand quickly what version a particular recipe is.  There are
> > also limited cases where 2 different $PVs are needed for some reasons.
> > 
> > Please resubmit this as a normal update with $PV contained in the file
> > name.
> > 
> > Please see: https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Best_Known_Methods_(BKMs
> > )_for_Package_Updating
> 
> Saul,
> I think the drawback of current procedure is it causes git “resets" history
> on recipe since new recipe when a renamed or git mv-ed recipe also have too
> much modifications. I don’t think git really tracks moving or renaming:

It doesn't reset history. You're right that it doesn't track renames - that's 
because rename detection is done whenever git looks at a change, not when the 
change is applied. If you want to see the full history including renames, use 
the --follow option.

Saul is correct, use of PV in the recipe filename is standard OE practice and 
we don't want to be deviating from that - besides which I'm not sure we have 
much to gain by doing so.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre