On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 07:28 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Just a heads up for people that we've branched for release and that > > jethro branches are now available. Bitbake branched as 1.28, I decided > > to save bitbake 2.0 for another occasion. > > what would be the occasion ?
Memory resident Bitbake? Toaster developments? Logging improvements? New shell commands? > this time lets branch consistently. Across different repositories > please. Bitbake is the only repo which doesn't use the branch codename. I did write at length about how version numbers as branches would actually cause much more pain than any problem they solve, bitbake is one of the few exceptions to that given its a tool, not metadata and has a more consistent history where the version number means something specific and is actively used. > I would also suggest to not use codenames in branches > but rather the numbered release. If we want to use codenames for > branches then lets drop the numbered release names. The number does have some uses, its really not that simple. If we want to discuss this all again, so be it, but on the eve of release really isn't the time to start it all again. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
