On 3/17/19 9:25 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 08:38:20AM -0700, akuster808 wrote: >> >> On 3/17/19 6:08 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 08:50:13AM -0700, akuster808 wrote: >>>> On 3/16/19 5:20 AM, Andreas Müller wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> 2. This was applied on Feb 6th which is not 3 month back exactly. >>>> then its worst than I thought, I can't remember what my thought process >>>> was back to Feb 6th. >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Stable_branch_maintenance#Point_release >>>> I am glad you are bringing these things up, it helps me revisit my own >>>> processes and help me improve. >>>> >>>> We are planning on revising the maintenance guidelines soon so I hope to >>>> get your input. >>> Was the boost upgrade in thud sent to the mailing list for review? >> That series did not, the previous ones and several Sumo request have. >> >> So you are the second person to mention the update, is it causing a >> problem? > You were requesting input. > > I am not using boost on Yocto, but in Debian it is pretty normal > that several packages stop building each time boost gets updated. > > "Drop signals library as upstream has removed it" in the backported > commit shows the tip of this iceberg. > > What went wrong that even the removal of a library from boost > did not prevent this change from entering a stable branch?
Like I said before, I don't recall the thought process when that series was put together. > >>> My reading of the "Requesting a fix in a stable branch" section >>> would be that this is already a mandatory part of the process. >> That is not under the "Maintainers procedure" so it does not apply. >> >> I have taken requests via IRC and a simple "please add this to stable >> branch X" emails so I have not been enforcing the letter of the law. >> ... >> Like I have mentioned already, the processes mentioned in >> "Stable_branch_maintenance" are under review. > One problem is that changes to master are getting better reviewed than > changes to stable branches. > > Upgrading boost in a stable branch wouldn't have survived a mailing > list review. I would hope so. > > A possible improvement would be to always use thud-next, and each time > commits are added to thud-next an email thread with all new commits gets > sent to the mailing list (similar to the review threads for new upstream > stable kernels, see [1] for an example). That is what I do for meta-openembedded and then I send a pull request. - Armin > >> regards, >> Armin > cu > Adrian > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/12/1290 > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
