Re: [OE-core] Patchwork & patch handling improvements


Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@...>
 

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:47:20 Martin Jansa wrote:
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 07:49:50AM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:
Hi Trevor,

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:19:35 Trevor Woerner wrote:
On 11/26/15 16:00, Paul Eggleton wrote:
I'm also
trying to ensure that the patch validation is generic enough so it can
live in OE-Core, and thus we can easily update and refine it over time
in
line with the code itself as well as encourage submitters to use the
script on their own changes before sending.
This all sounds like an improvement and is therefore a step in the right
direction :-)

A while back I had the idea of "porting" the kernel's "checkpatch.pl" to
The Yocto Project (it was around the same time that I was trying to
float the whole "Maintainers File" idea too, since I was also trying to
re-purpose "get-maintainer.pl" as well). About one minute into that
effort I realized the existing *.bb files were all over the place in
terms of the order of statements and the order of the blocks of
statements. At that time I found one recipe style guide from OE, and
another one from The Yocto Project, each of which described a slightly
different preference. So I asked on the mailing list and quickly
discovered that both groups prefer a different style.

I'm not saying this job isn't worth doing, but I am pointing out there's
the potential for feathers to be ruffled on both sides if someone tries
to produce a definitive style guide for recipe files and then enforces
it in an automated way. Since it is the OpenEmbedded Project's job to
provide the recipes for The Yocto Project, I'm guessing this question
needs to be decided by them? If that sounds reasonable, then maybe The
Yocto Project needs to acquiesce to OE's decision?
I don't think there's that much of a division. I don't recall if it was
you
that raised it at the time but the issue of having two style guides did
get
rectified - I changed the one on the Yocto Project wiki to simply be a
link to the OE style guide in June last year. It certainly didn't come
about through a conscious decision to have a different style.

However there is a minor disagreement over indentation for shell functions
between OE-Core and other layers - this persists because of the
backporting
pain a blanket replacement would potentially lead to. As I recall this did
get discussed at the OE TSC level. I think that's one thing we could just
not evaluate (or make an option) until such time as we resolve the
difference - and I do mean to see it resolved at some point in the
future.
Using consistent indentation (4 spaces) at least for new metadata would
be step in right direction.

With the amount of changes which are backported to older releases I
still don't see this "backporting pain" argument. Doing it just before
the release is of course useful, because e.g. now more changes will be
backported to Jethro than to Fido or Dizzy. So having consistent
indentation in Jethro and master would prevent 95% of "backporting
pain". Maybe some Yocto 10.0 will finally get the meaning of
"consistent" indentation.
I agree it's not ideal. I said above, I do want to see it resolved.

Leaving indentation aside for a moment do you have any comments on my
proposal?

Thanks,
Paul

--

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Join openembedded-architecture@lists.openembedded.org to automatically receive all group messages.