Upstream-Status finally @ 100%
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 into the Upstream communities.
Let's work to maintain this, I will be watching incoming patches and using a check script to verify that patches have Upstream-Status.
Thanks to all those people who worked to get Upstream-Status into their patches.
Sau!
Quoted 2 lines · Saul Wold
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-Status: Inappropriate". He said those patches were never submitted to him.
Are we dismissing patches without even giving upstream a chance to comment?
Signature · 1 line
Björn
Quoted 6 lines · Björn Stenberg
Quoted 2 lines · Saul Wold
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, ...) should add the appropriate Upstream-Status entry.
See: http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
We had a big push within the OE-Core team to try and determine if patches are appropriate for upstream or not.
Quoted 3 lines
I spoke to the author of curl and mentioned the two patches in Yocto against it, both of which are marked as "Upstream-Status: Inappropriate". He said those patches were never submitted to him.
Are we dismissing patches without even giving upstream a chance to comment?
In some cases yes we might be doing that, particularly patches that seemed to be specific to the OE cross compilation environment or to deal with packaging with in the embedded space where marked as Inappropriate.
Once we get though round one of the obvious potential upstream-able
patches we can revisit other.
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.
Sau!
Quoted 1 line · Saul Wold
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 "upstreamable" so they cannot be accepted by the curl project and nobody has tried to.
This said, at least one of the patches fixes a problem that still exists upstream but the yocto patch [*] is made in such a hard-coded way it'd have to be seriously edited to get accepted. The flaw has not even been discussed with or mentioned to the curl project AFAICR...
So, room for improvements!
[*] = http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/recipes-support/curl/curl/noldlibpath.patch
Signature · 1 line
/ daniel.haxx.se
Quoted 12 lines · Daniel Stenberg
Quoted 2 lines · Saul Wold
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 "upstreamable" so they cannot be accepted by the curl project and nobody has tried to.
Quoted 6 lines
This said, at least one of the patches fixes a problem that still exists upstream but the yocto patch [*] is made in such a hard-coded way it'd have to be seriously edited to get accepted. The flaw has not even been discussed with or mentioned to the curl project AFAICR...
So, room for improvements!
We understand the lack of upstreaming hence the process of documenting the patches with Upstream-Status
was put in place. So step by step we are getting there where we will be able to interact with upstream projects
on the patches we carry. The first step it to account for them which we did. Next step
would be to interact with respective upstream projects and propose the patches or describe
the problems if they are to be fixed differently.
-Khem
Quoted 6 lines · Daniel Stenberg
Quoted 3 lines · Saul Wold
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.
Quoted 6 lines
I am the maintainer of curl.
The curl patches Björn mentioned are clearly not written in way intended to be "upstreamable" so they cannot be accepted by the curl project and nobody has tried to.
I am sure there are many patches like that in OE, they are written, tested and then forgotten about, our goal here is to not let them get forgotten.
Quoted 11 lines
This said, at least one of the patches fixes a problem that still exists upstream but the yocto patch [*] is made in such a hard-coded way it'd have to be seriously edited to get accepted. The flaw has not even been discussed with or mentioned to the curl project AFAICR...
So, room for improvements!
[*] =
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/recipes-support/curl/curl/noldlibpath.patch
Daniel,
I think Khem has already said that we are taking incremental steps here, as I mentioned in my prior email, we have over 1200 patches lurking around in OE currently, initially we have about 460 as marked as pending.
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.
Thanks for your understanding.
Sau!
Quoted 1 line · Saul Wold
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.
Signature · 1 line
/ daniel.haxx.se
Op 9 feb. 2012, om 00:18 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 22 lines · Daniel Stenberg
Quoted 6 lines · Saul Wold
Quoted 4 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines
I am the maintainer of curl.
The curl patches Björn mentioned are clearly not written in way intended to be "upstreamable" so they cannot be accepted by the curl project and nobody has tried to.
I am sure there are many patches like that in OE, they are written, tested and then forgotten about, our goal here is to not let them get forgotten.
Quoted 7 lines
This said, at least one of the patches fixes a problem that still exists upstream but the yocto patch [*] is made in such a hard-coded way it'd have to be seriously edited to get accepted. The flaw has not even been discussed with or mentioned to the curl project AFAICR...
So, room for improvements!
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
[*] =
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/recipes-support/curl/curl/noldlibpath.patchDaniel,
I think Khem has already said that we are taking incremental steps here, as I mentioned in my prior email, we have over 1200 patches lurking around in OE currently, initially we have about 460 as marked as pending.
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' won't go in, it's 'rejected', 'unknown' or 'needs work' in those cases. I'm not going to guess what upstream might think of it, since I can't speak for them.
All patches in OE-core now have an Upstream-status, but how many have an *incorrect* Upstream-status? I suspect only a small percentage, but I think it's worth rethinking the lingo used to be clearer to non-native speakers like me.
regards,
Koen
Quoted 6 lines · 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' won't go in, it's 'rejected', 'unknown' or 'needs work' in those cases. I'm not going to guess what upstream might think of it, since I can't speak for them.
I think the distinction between Pending and Unknown is important. The status is not completely unknown - the person who set it made an assessment that the patch should be appropriate for sending upstream, even if it would need further cleanup beforehand. Maybe "Pending" isn't the best word, I'm not sure, but "Unknown" is not right either.
Quoted 2 lines
All patches in OE-core now have an Upstream-status, but how many have an *incorrect* Upstream-status?
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 what matters - it's a tool you can use in the separate exercise of going through the patches we do have and trying to get them merged upstream.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Op 9 feb. 2012, om 13:30 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
Quoted 14 lines · On Thursday 09 February 2012 13:22:10 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 6 lines
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' won't go in, it's 'rejected', 'unknown' or 'needs work' in those cases. I'm not going to guess what upstream might think of it, since I can't speak for them.
I think the distinction between Pending and Unknown is important. The status is not completely unknown - the person who set it made an assessment that the patch should be appropriate for sending upstream, even if it would need further cleanup beforehand. Maybe "Pending" isn't the best word, I'm not sure, but "Unknown" is not right either.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
All patches in OE-core now have an Upstream-status, but how many have an *incorrect* Upstream-status?
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 reflect the status from an upstream perspective, not from the OE perspective. So both 'Pending' and 'Inappropriate' boil down to 'Not submitted' currently. Maybe I'm overthinking all this :)
regards,
Koen
Quoted 8 lines · On Thursday 09 February 2012 15:51:11 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
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 reflect the status from an upstream perspective, not from the OE perspective. So both 'Pending' and 'Inappropriate' boil down to 'Not submitted' currently. Maybe I'm overthinking all this :)
Well unless I'm mistaken, the purpose of the field for which it was originally introduced is as I stated it, to track where we (layer maintainers) are in sending things upstream since the expectation is that we will be the ones doing the work required to do that. Whether or not the label(s) that get used accurately communicate that is another matter.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 10 lines · Paul Eggleton
Quoted 8 lines · On Thursday 09 February 2012 15:51:11 Koen Kooi wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
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 reflect the status from an upstream perspective, not from the OE perspective. So both 'Pending' and 'Inappropriate' boil down to 'Not submitted' currently. Maybe I'm overthinking all this :)
Quoted 6 lines
Well unless I'm mistaken, the purpose of the field for which it was originally introduced is as I stated it, to track where we (layer maintainers) are in sending things upstream since the expectation is that we will be the ones doing the work required to do that. Whether or not the label(s) that get used accurately communicate that is another matter.
Paul is correct here, a number of people made various proposals for what to put into this field from the perspective of the maintainers. This was then documented by Mark Hatle and reviewed in the TSC at somepoint. It is posted at:
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
There is never a good set of words because everyone can translate then differently. I think everyone is doing there best. For the existing set of Pending, we are working to get those upstream, they would then be marked Submitted, after that we can get more accurate response from the upstream and mark the patch as such. I think that the Submitted step is getting missed and we go from Pending -> updated upstream status.
Once we get through the "Pending" batch we can revisit the remaining 800 or so patches.
We are working on it, every little step makes things better.
Sau!
Quoted 3 lines
Cheers,
Paul
Quoted 3 lines · Koen Kooi
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' won't go in, it's 'rejected', 'unknown' or 'needs work' in those cases. I'm not going to guess what upstream might think of it, since I can't speak for them.
there I have seen 'Pending' and 'Submitted' and 'Accepted' which may be not best wording but explains the status of where the patch is. Here I think Pending means Pending submission. Umknown would be too vague.
Quoted 1 line
All patches in OE-core now have an Upstream-status, but how many have an *incorrect* Upstream-status? I suspect only a small percentage, but I think it's worth rethinking the lingo used to be clearer to non-native speakers like me.
Yes.
Quoted 2 lines · Björn Stenberg
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 patch w.r.t. upstream"
Quoted 3 lines
I spoke to the author of curl and mentioned the two patches in Yocto against it, both of which are marked as "Upstream-Status: Inappropriate". He said those patches were never submitted to him.
Are we dismissing patches without even giving upstream a chance to comment?
Thats not the intention at all. All patches should go upstream from OE's POV it would be cool to have 0 patches locally
If someone had better insights into patches and submit more appropriate analysis of patches thats welcome
all the time.
Quoted 14 lines
From: Saul Wold [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:12 AMWe 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
Quoted 8 lines
This means we have 461 patches to now work their way into the Upstream communities.
Let's work to maintain this, I will be watching incoming patches and using a check script to verify that patches have Upstream-Status.
Thanks to all those people who worked to get Upstream-Status into their patches.
Nicely done, all! I'm hoping we have can a reputation as a strong supporter of upstream projects, giving back wherever we can.
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?
Quoted 31 lines · David C
Quoted 14 lines
From: Saul Wold [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:12 AMWe 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: 461Quoted 4 lines
This means we have 461 patches to now work their way into the Upstream communities.
Let's work to maintain this, I will be watching incoming patches and
using a
Quoted 4 lines
check script to verify that patches have Upstream-Status.
Thanks to all those people who worked to get Upstream-Status into their patches.
Nicely done, all! I'm hoping we have can a reputation as a strong supporter of upstream projects, giving back wherever we can.
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Signature · 2 lines
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org
Quoted 3 lines · Jeffrey
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 the patches, it's just we've now declared on each and every one whether it can be/has been upstreamed.
Cheers,
Paul
Signature · 2 lines
Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Quoted 3 lines · Jeffrey
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 'Upstream-Status' and for most of them it reflects the status of patch w.r.t. upstream of given package
Ah, documentation :) excellent
Quoted 10 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 3 lines · Jeffrey
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 'Upstream-Status' and for most of them it reflects the status of patch w.r.t. upstream of given package
Signature · 2 lines
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org
Quoted 2 lines · Jeffrey
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 potentially be up-streamed to other communities, depending the status of those communities, from active communities accepting patches to upstream source that is just download-able with no activity or maintainers.
We have 1243 patches overall, which include OE Specific configuration patches and Embedded specific tweaks to various upstreams that may not be appropriate or acceptable to the upstream community.
Sau!
Quoted 23 lines
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Khem Raj <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Osier-mixon, Jeffrey <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 'Upstream-Status' and for most of them it reflects the status of patch w.r.t. upstream of given package
--
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org
<http://yoctoproject.org/>
Am Mittwoch, den 08.02.2012, 10:45 -0800 schrieb Saul Wold:
Quoted 2 lines · Jeffrey
Quoted 1 line
Ah, documentation :) excellent
Saul, thank you for the update and enforcing that requirement from the commit and patch message guidelines.
Quoted 10 lines
Jefro:
You can get more info about this from Mark's OE page:
http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_GuidelinesThe Key thing to note on my numbers is that we have 461 patches that could potentially be up-streamed to other communities, depending the status of those communities, from active communities accepting patches to upstream source that is just download-able with no activity or maintainers.
Emphasis should be laid on *could*. Sending these patches upstream still has to be done most of the time and most developers do not spend time with that. I hope that will improve in the future somehow.
Quoted 3 lines
We have 1243 patches overall, which include OE Specific configuration patches and Embedded specific tweaks to various upstreams that may not be appropriate or acceptable to the upstream community.
Thanks,
Paul