From: yocto-bounces@... [mailto:yocto-
bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dirk Hohndel
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:48 AM

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:24:40 -0500, Mark Hatle
<mark.hatle@...> wrote:

Add a +1 to reviewed, worried, but accepting column. They each seem

reasonable,

low-enough risk..

same here

We won't have a bug free release. No one ever does. And any change
increases the risk.

So the question is "are they worth the added risk?". I believe the
proposed changes address issues that people WILL run into as they start
playing with things, so I think the risk is worth the reward.

/D

On 10/22/10 12:23 PM, Saul G. Wold wrote:

On 10/22/2010 09:32 AM, Stewart, David C wrote:

From: yocto-bounces@... [mailto:yocto-
bounces@...] On Behalf Of Richard Purdie
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:24 AM

Coming up to release there are a few things that the extended

testing

has shown up which we have fixes for and which we should consider
including in the release. I also finally got around to doing the

final

sstate stress testing and found several problematic issues. Given

that

sstate and checksums are a significant feature of this release,

I'd

really like them to work as well as we can make them. Prior to

this I

had stress tested the backend up not the use of the packages.

These

changes don't change any sstate packages themselves, just the use

of

them.

Since we already have the release images prepared and tested and

these

are not going to change, the criteria for potential changes:

a) We can unit test the changes and be confident they don't
break/regress things.

For the Future: Besides doing a basic build, we need to have some

real

unit tests for bitbake and the poky infrastructure, I guess I need

to

turn this into a Testing feature request for 1.0 (look for it soon).

b) They fix important bugs that the user can easily run into
or that make the project look bad.

After reviewing the changes I agree, don't get me wrong, I am still

very

nervous about these changes.

c) The changes are small, well documented and are obviously

correct

looking at the code/patch.

Some times we over look the obvious changes, been caught by that

myself

too many time.

d) The don't change the generated images.

<SNIP>

I'm not happy about being in this position and I know Dave will be

very

nervous about these late changes. To mitigate this I'd like to

propose

that a selection of people (Josh, Mark, Saul?) review these

changes and

report back on whether they feel these are appropriate and also

give the

build some testing with these applied.

I'm so predictable... :-) Yes, I'm nervous. I looked at all of the

patches and with the exception of one or two, they mostly seem like good
ones. I will accept these if Josh/Mark/Saul give us a +1 on their
review& testing.

If there was 1 or 2 changes, I would be much happier, but there are
almost a dozen changes, yes mostly individually they are OK, I am

still

reviewing them all, and have not started any testing with them yet.

I agree with Dave that there are a couple that I am more nervous

about

the pseudo/fakeroot as we have had so much trouble in the past, yes

I

know this will make things better, but what else will crop up?

Cheers,

Richard









_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@...
https://lists.pokylinux.org/listinfo/yocto

_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@...
https://lists.pokylinux.org/listinfo/yocto

_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@...
https://lists.pokylinux.org/listinfo/yocto

_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@...
https://lists.pokylinux.org/listinfo/yocto

--
Dirk Hohndel
Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@...
https://lists.pokylinux.org/listinfo/yocto