Hi Trevor, On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:19:35 Trevor Woerner wrote: > On 11/26/15 16:00, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > I'm also > > trying to ensure that the patch validation is generic enough so it can > > live in OE-Core, and thus we can easily update and refine it over time in > > line with the code itself as well as encourage submitters to use the > > script on their own changes before sending. > > This all sounds like an improvement and is therefore a step in the right > direction :-) > > A while back I had the idea of "porting" the kernel's "checkpatch.pl" to > The Yocto Project (it was around the same time that I was trying to > float the whole "Maintainers File" idea too, since I was also trying to > re-purpose "get-maintainer.pl" as well). About one minute into that > effort I realized the existing *.bb files were all over the place in > terms of the order of statements and the order of the blocks of > statements. At that time I found one recipe style guide from OE, and > another one from The Yocto Project, each of which described a slightly > different preference. So I asked on the mailing list and quickly > discovered that both groups prefer a different style. > > I'm not saying this job isn't worth doing, but I am pointing out there's > the potential for feathers to be ruffled on both sides if someone tries > to produce a definitive style guide for recipe files and then enforces > it in an automated way. Since it is the OpenEmbedded Project's job to > provide the recipes for The Yocto Project, I'm guessing this question > needs to be decided by them? If that sounds reasonable, then maybe The > Yocto Project needs to acquiesce to OE's decision?
I don't think there's that much of a division. I don't recall if it was you that raised it at the time but the issue of having two style guides did get rectified - I changed the one on the Yocto Project wiki to simply be a link to the OE style guide in June last year. It certainly didn't come about through a conscious decision to have a different style. However there is a minor disagreement over indentation for shell functions between OE-Core and other layers - this persists because of the backporting pain a blanket replacement would potentially lead to. As I recall this did get discussed at the OE TSC level. I think that's one thing we could just not evaluate (or make an option) until such time as we resolve the difference - and I do mean to see it resolved at some point in the future. > Instead of cross-posting, maybe this would be a good email for the new > architecture list (CC'ed)? Perhaps yes; I'm a bit concerned that list still doesn't have that many subscribers though (currently 28, two of which are the same person). Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
