On 02/09/2012 07:31 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Thursday 09 February 2012 15:51:11 Koen Kooi wrote:
The status ought to be correct with regard to the patch author's
assessment of whether or not the patch can go upstream.
That's where I disagree, it's called 'Upstream-status', not
'Perceived-up
On Thursday 09 February 2012 15:51:11 Koen Kooi wrote:
> > The status ought to be correct with regard to the patch author's
> > assessment of whether or not the patch can go upstream.
>
> That's where I disagree, it's called 'Upstream-status', not
> 'Perceived-upstream-status'. The field should re
Op 9 feb. 2012, om 13:30 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> On Thursday 09 February 2012 13:22:10 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> I find the 'pending' confusing, is it 'pending submission' or 'pending
>> approval'? I'm marking patches in meta-oe with 'Upstream-status: Unknown'
>> as default inste
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> I find the 'pending' confusing, is it 'pending submission' or 'pending
> approval'? I'm marking patches in meta-oe with 'Upstream-status: Unknown' as
> default instead of 'Pending' to make it a bit clearer. And patches marked
> 'inappropriate
On Thursday 09 February 2012 13:22:10 Koen Kooi wrote:
> I find the 'pending' confusing, is it 'pending submission' or 'pending
> approval'? I'm marking patches in meta-oe with 'Upstream-status: Unknown'
> as default instead of 'Pending' to make it a bit clearer. And patches
> marked 'inappropriate
Op 9 feb. 2012, om 00:18 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
> On 02/08/2012 01:26 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote:
>>
>>> If the author of curl would like to review and/or implement
>>> modification for OE that would be awesome, feel free to share the
>>>
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote:
If you can fix those issues, since we can't address all of them initially or
be experts in all upstreams, we would be very grateful to remove 1 or 2 more
patches.
Yes, I started looking into that.
--
/ daniel.haxx.se
On 02/08/2012 01:26 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote:
If the author of curl would like to review and/or implement
modification for OE that would be awesome, feel free to share the
patches with them.
I am the maintainer of curl.
The curl patches Björn mentioned a
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote:
>
>> If the author of curl would like to review and/or implement modification
>> for OE that would be awesome, feel free to share the patches with them.
>
>
> I am the maintainer of curl.
>
> The curl pat
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Saul Wold wrote:
If the author of curl would like to review and/or implement modification for
OE that would be awesome, feel free to share the patches with them.
I am the maintainer of curl.
The curl patches Björn mentioned are clearly not written in way intended to be
"u
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Who sets the Upstream-Status? Are there guidelines how to do it?
>
patch author importer whoever brings this patch in into oe. Sometimes
there might be judgement error on patches
thats why I said "for most of them it reflects the status of p
On 02/08/2012 02:07 AM, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Saul Wold wrote:
After getting some final patches yesterday, we made it to 100% with
patch Upsteam-Status.
Who sets the Upstream-Status? Are there guidelines how to do it?
The developer of the patch submitted to any OE branch (oe-core, meta-oe,
.
Saul Wold wrote:
> After getting some final patches yesterday, we made it to 100% with
> patch Upsteam-Status.
Who sets the Upstream-Status? Are there guidelines how to do it?
I spoke to the author of curl and mentioned the two patches in Yocto against
it, both of which are marked as "Upstream-S
On 02/08/2012 10:04 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey wrote:
Ah, documentation :) excellent
Jefro:
You can get more info about this from Mark's OE page:
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
The Key thing to note on my numbers is that we have 461 patches that
could potent
Ah, documentation :) excellent
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey
> wrote:
> > This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
> > reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100% of? Do we
>
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey
wrote:
> This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
> reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100% of? Do we
> have no local patches to upstream projects at all?
it means that all patches have a field
On Wednesday 08 February 2012 09:34:56 Osier-mixon, Jeffrey wrote:
> This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
> reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100% of? Do we
> have no local patches to upstream projects at all?
Not quite - we still have most of
This sounds fantastic, and I'd love to create a page on the website
reflecting this. Just so I am clear, what exactly is this 100% of? Do we
have no local patches to upstream projects at all?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Stewart, David C
wrote:
> > From: Saul Wold [mailto:saul.w...@intel.com]
> From: Saul Wold [mailto:saul.w...@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:12 AM
>
> We finally did it!
>
> After getting some final patches yesterday, we made it to 100% with patch
> Upsteam-Status.
>
> Total Patches Files: 1243
> All Upstream-Status: 1243
> Fix Upstream-Status: 0
>
We finally did it!
After getting some final patches yesterday, we made it to 100% with
patch Upsteam-Status.
Total Patches Files: 1243
All Upstream-Status: 1243
Fix Upstream-Status: 0
Need Upstream-Status: 0
Pending Upstream-Status: 461
This means we have 461 patches to now work their way in
20 matches
Mail list logo
