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?

Instead of cross-posting, maybe this would be a good email for the new
architecture list (CC'ed)?

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.

Instead of cross-posting, maybe this would be a good email for the new
architecture list (CC'ed)?

Perhaps yes; I'm a bit concerned that list still doesn't have that many
subscribers though (currently 28, two of which are the same person).

Cheers,
Paul

--

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

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

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:01:40PM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:

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?

I'm not familiar with FDO fork, so I don't know how it looks and
behaves, but any improvement on patchwork side is definitely welcome and
I appreciate it.

Does it support e.g. moving the patches to given bundle based on some
substring in subject? To sort e.g. meta-networking, meta-java,
meta-browser, .. patches automatically?

I don't expect FDO fork to provide other features I'm used to from
gerrit like cherry-picking to selected branch from the UI or doing the
review there. But still if we're stuck with patchwork forever (because
some people hate gerrit), then any improvement is really appreciated,
thanks for looking into it.

My only concern is about migrating current database, do you know if the
migration will keep the database including bundles as they are or do you
plan to set FDO version in parallel at least for some transition period?
Currently I have many patches in flight, because jenkins is running full
test-dependencies job for last 11 and based on progress it will take
14-21 more days to finish.

Regards,

--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@...

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 10:19 -0500, 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?

Instead of cross-posting, maybe this would be a good email for the new
architecture list (CC'ed)?

I think the areas where there are disagreements are comparatively small,
really just on shell whitespace. Where they do exist, they are
problematic, not least as some layers effectively ignored an agreement
made by the TSC simply because they didn't agree with it. It basically
means the OE TSC only applies to OE-Core as far as I can tell, which is
sad but is the decision that was made. This also means the TSC has no
real influence over any proposed coding style being used outside
OE-Core.

I do still believe shell whitespace changes would cause significant
patch compatibility issues, I know I disagree on Martin over that. I
still don't like the idea of people blindly running a formatting script
since we'll than start seeing patches every time there is a single space
in the wrong place. We simply don't want that amount of churn on the
metadata.

I can imagine several people replying and saying that patch churn is not
an issue but having seen the things people send patches for, I believe
it will be. I don't want to encourage such things as I believe there are
better things to do with our time (mine included as I'd have to review
them, even to just say 'no').

The maintainers file is a different problem and its one of maintenance,
and more specifically what being listed means, who can be listed, how
that listing can be changed and so on. The Yocto Project has some notion
of maintainer and there its easy, Ross and I can made decisions on who
is listed and what those people are expected to do and we can make it
work (its how we ensure things get upgraded with some regularity). For
OE, who would do this and what would the maintainer file mean? If
someone patches something, are they required to cc the maintainer on
patches for example? (that would imply workflow overhead) What if they
don't cc a maintainer? Should we be forced to revert such a patch?

In many ways its like the "what is a stable branch?" question. Some
people want to use a maintainers file as a way of having a veto on
certain patches. Others want to use it as a way of finding people to fix
bugs. Others again want it to help review patches. The uses vary and you
need a clear definition about what its being used for to make it work.

If someone wants to put together a proposal about which problem this
solves, with clear definitions/charter about how it would all work,
great, but I've seen a lot of problems with such files and I worry it
creates more problems than it would solve.

Cheers,

Richard

On 02/12/2015 08:17, "openembedded-core-bounces@... on
behalf of Martin Jansa" <openembedded-core-bounces@...
on behalf of martin.jansa@...> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:01:40PM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:

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?

I'm not familiar with FDO fork, so I don't know how it looks and
behaves,

This is how it looks like currently

http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/intel-gfx/patches/

but any improvement on patchwork side is definitely welcome and
I appreciate it.

Does it support e.g. moving the patches to given bundle based on some
substring in subject? To sort e.g. meta-networking, meta-java,
meta-browser, .. patches automatically?

Mmm, you might not like this, but we are thinking of getting rid of
bundles. Basically, we assumed bundles were a manual way of creating patch
series. The new Patchwork can identify series, so we thought: great!
Bundles no longer needed.

There are other features been considered that might be an alternative to
bundles, like tagging

I don't expect FDO fork to provide other features I'm used to from
gerrit like cherry-picking to selected branch from the UI or doing the
review there. But still if we're stuck with patchwork forever (because
some people hate gerrit), then any improvement is really appreciated,
thanks for looking into it.

My only concern is about migrating current database, do you know if the
migration will keep the database including bundles as they are or do you
plan to set FDO version in parallel at least for some transition period?
Currently I have many patches in flight, because jenkins is running full
test-dependencies job for last 11 and based on progress it will take
14-21 more days to finish.

Regards,

--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@...

On 02/12/2015 10:54, "openembedded-core-bounces@... on
behalf of Barros Pena, Belen"
<openembedded-core-bounces@... on behalf of
belen.barros.pena@...> wrote:

On 02/12/2015 08:17, "openembedded-core-bounces@... on
behalf of Martin Jansa" <openembedded-core-bounces@...
on behalf of martin.jansa@...> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:01:40PM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:

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?

I'm not familiar with FDO fork, so I don't know how it looks and
behaves,

This is how it looks like currently

http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/intel-gfx/patches/

but any improvement on patchwork side is definitely welcome and
I appreciate it.

Does it support e.g. moving the patches to given bundle based on some
substring in subject? To sort e.g. meta-networking, meta-java,
meta-browser, .. patches automatically?

Mmm, you might not like this, but we are thinking of getting rid of
bundles. Basically, we assumed bundles were a manual way of creating patch
series. The new Patchwork can identify series, so we thought: great!
Bundles no longer needed.

There are other features been considered that might be an alternative to
bundles, like tagging

sorry: pressed 'send' too soon :/ As I was saying, tagging

https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/issues/36

Or supporting several projects within the same mailing list (in your case,
one per layer)

https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/issues/77

I don't expect FDO fork to provide other features I'm used to from
gerrit like cherry-picking to selected branch from the UI or doing the
review there. But still if we're stuck with patchwork forever (because
some people hate gerrit), then any improvement is really appreciated,
thanks for looking into it.

My only concern is about migrating current database, do you know if the
migration will keep the database

I don't know, but I can find out.

including bundles

If we remove the bundles, then I guess the migration might not keep the
bundles.

Belén

as they are or do you
plan to set FDO version in parallel at least for some transition period?
Currently I have many patches in flight, because jenkins is running full
test-dependencies job for last 11 and based on progress it will take
14-21 more days to finish.

Regards,

--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@...

--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@...
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

On 12/02/2015 03:44 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 10:19 -0500, Trevor Woerner wrote:

On 11/26/15 16:00, Paul Eggleton wrote:

....

I think the areas where there are disagreements are comparatively small,
really just on shell whitespace. Where they do exist, they are
problematic, not least as some layers effectively ignored an agreement
made by the TSC simply because they didn't agree with it. It basically
means the OE TSC only applies to OE-Core as far as I can tell, which is
sad but is the decision that was made. This also means the TSC has no
real influence over any proposed coding style being used outside
OE-Core.

Can you remind us what the whitespace argument is again? I forget, and I
think it is important that everyone understand the details.

Philip

PS: I trimmed the distribution to only the architecture list.

On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 10:20 -0500, Philip Balister wrote:

On 12/02/2015 03:44 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 10:19 -0500, Trevor Woerner wrote:

On 11/26/15 16:00, Paul Eggleton wrote:

I think the areas where there are disagreements are comparatively small,
really just on shell whitespace. Where they do exist, they are
problematic, not least as some layers effectively ignored an agreement
made by the TSC simply because they didn't agree with it. It basically
means the OE TSC only applies to OE-Core as far as I can tell, which is
sad but is the decision that was made. This also means the TSC has no
real influence over any proposed coding style being used outside
OE-Core.

Can you remind us what the whitespace argument is again? I forget, and I
think it is important that everyone understand the details.

At the time we fixed python functions to use four space indentation and
no tabs. This matches python recommendations and avoided issues with
some version of python which became stricter about whitespace if I
remember rightly, something like that anyway. Regardless, there was a
pressing reason to fix things to one format.

There was a proposal we should standardise shell functions too. One of
our style guides said tabs, one said spaces. Most of OE-Core was tabs.
Rather than change everything, the TSC discussed and agreed to leave as
tabs rather than have patch churn although it was a tough decision and a
lot of discussion. meta-oe standardised on four space indentation for
shell since they believed the TSC to be wrong.

There are clearly arguments either way, not least that editor settings
are easier if its all spaces rather than having to be context aware.

Cheers,

Richard

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:59:17AM +0000, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:

On 02/12/2015 10:54, "openembedded-core-bounces@... on
behalf of Barros Pena, Belen"
<openembedded-core-bounces@... on behalf of
belen.barros.pena@...> wrote:

On 02/12/2015 08:17, "openembedded-core-bounces@... on
behalf of Martin Jansa" <openembedded-core-bounces@...
on behalf of martin.jansa@...> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:01:40PM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:

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?

I'm not familiar with FDO fork, so I don't know how it looks and
behaves,

This is how it looks like currently

http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/intel-gfx/patches/

but any improvement on patchwork side is definitely welcome and
I appreciate it.

Does it support e.g. moving the patches to given bundle based on some
substring in subject? To sort e.g. meta-networking, meta-java,
meta-browser, .. patches automatically?

Mmm, you might not like this, but we are thinking of getting rid of
bundles. Basically, we assumed bundles were a manual way of creating patch
series. The new Patchwork can identify series, so we thought: great!
Bundles no longer needed.

There are other features been considered that might be an alternative to
bundles, like tagging

sorry: pressed 'send' too soon :/ As I was saying, tagging

https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/issues/36

Or supporting several projects within the same mailing list (in your case,
one per layer)

https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/issues/77

I don't expect FDO fork to provide other features I'm used to from
gerrit like cherry-picking to selected branch from the UI or doing the
review there. But still if we're stuck with patchwork forever (because
some people hate gerrit), then any improvement is really appreciated,
thanks for looking into it.

My only concern is about migrating current database, do you know if the
migration will keep the database

I don't know, but I can find out.

including bundles

If we remove the bundles, then I guess the migration might not keep the
bundles.

OK, then can we please postpone this upgrade (or run both patchworks in
parallel) until these 2 features are implemented and working?

I'm depending on bundles heavily, to "mark" the patches for layers with
dedicated maintainer and also for extra "status" like merged in
"master-next" branch for jenkins build, because standard status values
aren't fine-grained enough.

Regards,

--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@...

On 12/02/2015 11:22 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 10:20 -0500, Philip Balister wrote:

On 12/02/2015 03:44 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 10:19 -0500, Trevor Woerner wrote:

On 11/26/15 16:00, Paul Eggleton wrote:

I think the areas where there are disagreements are comparatively small,
really just on shell whitespace. Where they do exist, they are
problematic, not least as some layers effectively ignored an agreement
made by the TSC simply because they didn't agree with it. It basically
means the OE TSC only applies to OE-Core as far as I can tell, which is
sad but is the decision that was made. This also means the TSC has no
real influence over any proposed coding style being used outside
OE-Core.

Can you remind us what the whitespace argument is again? I forget, and I
think it is important that everyone understand the details.

At the time we fixed python functions to use four space indentation and
no tabs. This matches python recommendations and avoided issues with
some version of python which became stricter about whitespace if I
remember rightly, something like that anyway. Regardless, there was a
pressing reason to fix things to one format.

There was a proposal we should standardise shell functions too. One of
our style guides said tabs, one said spaces. Most of OE-Core was tabs.
Rather than change everything, the TSC discussed and agreed to leave as
tabs rather than have patch churn although it was a tough decision and a
lot of discussion. meta-oe standardised on four space indentation for
shell since they believed the TSC to be wrong.

Guys, it is 2015 and we are having a discussion about white space. Take
a deep breath.

The underlying issue here is this was brought up with the TSC, since we
need clear guideance for people working on meta-data. The TSC decided to
follow OE-Core. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here,
just that we need to get our act together and move toward one way of
indenting, so that we provide consistent guidance and people have a
chance of automating processes.

If you are unhappy with TSC decisions, please run for a position.

Philip

PS: Another shitty day in America has depressed me enough to make silly
statement. Gah, no possibly to offensive to some people.

There are clearly arguments either way, not least that editor settings
are easier if its all spaces rather than having to be context aware.

Cheers,

Richard

On 02/12/2015 18:43, "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@...> wrote:

On 2 December 2015 at 18:04, Martin Jansa
<martin.jansa@...> wrote:

I'm depending on bundles heavily, to "mark" the patches for layers with
dedicated maintainer and also for extra "status" like merged in
"master-next" branch for jenkins build, because standard status values
aren't fine-grained enough.




Sounds like instead of bundles the new patchworks needs the ability for a
single list to represent multiple projects (so there'd be a meta-oe,
meta-python, etc),

That's already in place

https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/issues/15

and more status values.

You can add status values (to the db directly or via the Django admin
interface), but they will apply to all projects in the Patchwork instance.
Ideally you should be able to set a list of status values per project I
guess.

Cheers

Belén

Ross

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:51:22PM +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:

On 3 December 2015 at 11:43, Barros Pena, Belen <belen.barros.pena@...

wrote:

and more status values.

You can add status values (to the db directly or via the Django admin
interface), but they will apply to all projects in the Patchwork instance.
Ideally you should be able to set a list of status values per project I
guess.

Well it depends on what the extra values are. Martin, what values do you
use? A "merged in staging" value would be useful for everyone.

The list of bundles is in:
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Patchwork#Multiple_layers_sharing_the_same_oe_project_on_patchwork

Once the patches are added to correct bundles I mark them as archived to
know which ones were sorted (the main page gets empty).

Advantage of bundles (something similar can probably work with tags) is
that the same patch can be in multiple bundles, e.g. I can include some
change in master-next branch and bundle while also adding it to
meta-networking bundle for Joe to merge it when ready.

--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@...

On 03/12/2015 12:51, "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@...> wrote:

On 3 December 2015 at 11:43, Barros Pena, Belen
<belen.barros.pena@...> wrote:

and more status values.

You can add status values (to the db directly or via the Django admin
interface), but they will apply to all projects in the Patchwork instance.
Ideally you should be able to set a list of status values per project I
guess.




Well it depends on what the extra values are.

Heh, I meant that's how Patchwork works at the moment, independently of
what we do for OE

Martin, what values do you use? A "merged in staging" value would be
useful for everyone.


Ross