[Dev] Enhancing development workflow

Markus Lehtonen markus.lehtonen at linux.intel.com
Fri Oct 24 13:30:31 GMT 2014


On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 14:58 +0200, Stéphane Desneux wrote:
> Hi all,
> +1
> Let me summarize (and make small adjustments on Maciej's proposal):
> - for "big" updates (ex: systemd), we could harmonize the naming and
> have a "devel_common" branch (in place of Maciej's for-next branch),
> submitted and built in the devel:Tizen:Common project, with images
> published in snapshots/devel/common. If it's a profile-specific package,
> the branch could be named devel_<profile>
> - when the devel_common branch is ok, we rename the current tizen branch
> to tizen_x.y.z (x.y.z.= the version of the package, as indicated in the
> spec file). This way, we don't lose the possibility to build old
> versions. Then we create a new tizen branch from devel_common (or rename
> 'devel_common' to 'tizen')

+1 from me, too. I think that something like this would be useful and
really needed. Doing (mostly testing/verifying) major updates of core
components can be painful, with the current setup.

Switching to use the "orphan-packaging" model would help in this. Making
force pushes unnecessary and making version bumps reviewable in gerrit,
for example. See:

> - correct me if I'm wrong: the above rules would work only if the
> upstream branch always goes forward (push --force should be forbidden on
> the upstream branch). Otherwise, some inconsistencies can be introduced
> for old tizen_x.y.z branches.

Yes, force pushing to upstream branch should not be done (IMO). Strictly
speaking, force pushing to the upstream _branch_ does not break builds,
as long as the upstream _tags_ are not overwritten.

> Finally a question: do we still need pristine-tar branches ? Using
> upstream gits is far better IMO (even in case where the upstream branch
> is maintained only on tizen.org)

The value of pristine-tar is in that you can get tarballs that are
byte-by-byte identical with the "real" upstream release tarballs
(assuming you maintain the upstream branch with gbs import). I don't
know how important this is in Tizen as we don't verify tarball checksums
anywhere or so. A decision left to the package maintainer, I guess.


> FYI, we'll have to upgrade ~100 packages soon to align with Yocto
> versions. This makes Maciej's proposal even more interesting !
> Best regards.

More information about the Dev mailing list