Re: Can layer maintainers add yocto-X.Y tags for yocto-3.3 and later?


Armin Kuster
 

On 4/29/21 12:37 PM, Randy MacLeod wrote:
On 2021-04-27 1:06 p.m., Khem Raj wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:48 AM Randy MacLeod
<randy.macleod@...> wrote:
Hi,


I've CCed some of the maintainers of more widely used Yocto layers
to get comments on about tagging. Please add in people who I may
have missed.


For a while now, oe-core has had a yocto-X.Y tag in addition to the
release branch name. This helps users easily find the exact commit
that corresponds to the say 3.3 GA release. There have been some
omissions in tagging but Michael and Richard are adjusting the
release process so that tagging will happen more consistently.

Most yocto layers have not adopted the tagging perhaps because they
weren't aware of it so that's why I'm writing this email. Tagging
will make it easy to find the first commit for a specific release
independent of what the branching policy of a layer is. Layer
maintainers sometimes create the release branch in advance of
when oe-core is released and by adding the tag, it would make it
clear when the layer considers content to be officially released.
Of course it's up to users to decide if they are going to follow
the HEAD of a branch or, for some reason, stick with a tagged commit
or private branch off that commit.
I think this could be a good thing, although it does put the burden on
release maintainers. mostly they
test against the tip of the release branch,  So if yocto project
testing is including these layers for wider
testing and can then recommend a validated commit then perhaps this
could be made viable.

How about:

https://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/commit/?id=71b546ed8595b14d29efc1e8b951f8c845ad10c4
The implication here is that the Yocto Project has run QA if this is in
response to Khem's statement above, Or am I miss interpreting your
recommendation?


Now regarding meta-security, I would not use a "yocto" named tag.   I am
not  a fan of an upstream Project telling me to use their tagging
scheme. If I do that, then I need to be open to WindRriver, MontaVista,
Petalinux, Mentor, Enea, Arm and  etc tags.  Those Companies send me
patches.  Does RedHat tell the kernel.org to use their tags? No, its the
other way around.

If I would tag meta-security, I would have to write up the meaning of it
and possible a policy/process around it so if a new maintainer came
along they could  continue that process or do something else. This is a
hard sell as I am not seeing the benefit to this layer in adopting a
tagging scheme.

- Armin


../Randy


Are there any concerns about attempting to do this for yocto-3.3
and later?

Should we make it a requirement for yocto compliance?
Should it be a feature tested by the yocto compliance script?



Here's what's in oe-core and bitbake now:
$ cd .../oe-core.git
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.1.7
yocto-3.2
yocto-3.2.1
yocto-3.3

$ cd bitbake/
$ git tag -l | grep yocto-3
yocto-3.0
yocto-3.1
yocto-3.2

--
# Randy MacLeod
# Wind River Linux

Join yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org to automatically receive all group messages.