On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 23:03 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Otavio Salvador > > <otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Aug 21, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> The 'BRANCH' variable name has no explicit relation with the > >>> SRC_URI. Using 'SRC_BRANCH' makes it more obvious and easier to > >>> identify. > >> > >> Look good to me, just may be avoid ‘_’ and call it SRCBRANCH > > > > I did this initially but looking at how it looks in the source code, > > it seems SRC_BRANCH makes easier to spot the relation with SRC_URI. So > > I took the second. > > since bitbake use ‘_’ as a override separator, its less confusing if > variables don’t have underscore in them > for future collision.
Names with '_' in them might look better but there is a small price to pay for it in that bitbake then has to track whether "BRANCH" is an override. Obviously it does this in many cases already (e.g. URI from SRC_URI) but when you've looked at what the datastore actually has to do to keep the system working, you start to lean against creating more work for it. I continue to believe we should probably find a better syntax for overrides. If someone had a good alternative, it would probably be worth the pain of switching... I'm not saying we shouldn't take the above patch here, just that this is something which does have a cost and all the uses do mount up significantly. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
