On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 8:48 AM Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 08:33 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > I don't recall the upstream-status being added as a yocto > > compatibility requirement. Can someone point me to a discussion that I > > missed ? > > It isn't a requirement at this time and there isn't any recent > discussion you've missed. > > The topic has come up now and again at various points, including with > the YP TSC and I suspect that was why we have > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14642 from back in > 2021. I think the view of the YP TSC was that we probably should warn > about things like this from yocto-check-layer perspective as it is a > best practise we want to raise the profile of. > > > As everyone can recall, I wasn't on board with this being a default QA > > check and error, and I'm also not on board with it being a yocto > > compliance error. > > > > I realize it isn't being made an error in this patch, but I wanted to > > raise my concerns now, before someone throws that switch. > > Your concerns are definitely known! As I said at the time in the > discussion, the TSC does intend to add some extra checks around QA > issues to YP Compatible but no decision on which ones has been made > yet, I think that action rests with me to make a proposal. My view is > this one can remain a warning, I can't speak for the rest of the TSC. I > do think having yocto-check-layer show more warnings about best > practises if the direction things will move though even if it doesn't > change the resulting compatibility status. > > There is an intent to improve "quality" over time so I can't promise > this will never become an error but I don't have any plans to push this > beyond a warning. As above, I can't speak for all TSC members though. >
Sounds good. Summary: Everything is under control, and I didn't manage to zone out and miss something while battling with the latest round of golang craziness. I've already gone through my layers and updated the formatting and put inappropriate on most of the patches (I may have missed some), so my argument isn't really an argument at this point. With the QA check being around now, and anyone being able to turn it on, patches without a status should be fairly rare. If it did become a compatibility requirement, I'd of course make the changes and stay compatible (maybe grumbling a bit at the same time ;)) Cheers, Bruce > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > -- - Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end - "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#177608): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/177608 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/97178225/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
