I believe it just needs a "standard coding" release cycle. Everything out there has a "stable" and a "beta" version.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/releng/index.html is a good practice.
I'm rather new to Gumstix, and rather shocked there's not a "just works" repo (other than the factory image)
It's not like we're complaining about a piece of OSS software that doesn't receive financial contributions (via hardware purchases)
From: AJ ONeal [mailto:coolaj86+cIqudQyv@...]
To: General mailing list for gumstix users. [mailto:gumstix-users@...]
Sent: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:51:25 -0400
Subject: [Gumstix-users] Proposed Solution for poor bitbake Quality Control?
I'm hijacking my thread back.
(BTW, if you know you're going to hijack, just hit the edit subject button in gmail to start a new thread. If you're still used a text-based mail client... I don't want to hear about it... really...)
How about something like this:
All updates are done in the "moving-target" (unstable) branch
Any time the "moving-target" branch will build a clean omap3-desktop-image without errors it is merged with the "just-works" (stable) branch
The "just works" branch.
Then try to do a "bitbake world" on the "just-works" branches and tag that branch as special (or merge it with a "no-really-it-does-work" branch).
If by the end of 2 months the same packages are still failing, prune them and if no one complains that they're missing, all the better.
Who is in charge anyway? Is that person interested in making things more reliable? Does that person want help?
We can come up with all sorts of possible solutions, but if no one has power or is willing to try them out... no dice, y'know?
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Cliff Brake <cliff.brake@...> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@...> wrote:
> The biggest problem (as discussed at great length already) is that the
> distance from 'dev' to 'stable' can be measured in years :-( 'stable'
> just isn't useful at all for "current" work...
I must admit that some percentage of the time I also experience build
errors, but I've simply adapted my work-flow to deal with it. For my
project work, I simply build over the course of a week or so until I
get something stable, and then lock down my OE version for my
I think it would be very useful to have a "stable" branch that is only
synchronised with dev when X number of targets build from a clean
build. It seems like this would be high value, with little effort.
Of course there will be corner things that break, but at least a new
beagleboard user can check out something and have reasonable
confidence that it will build images.
Does anyone have suggestions for the branch name and a reasonable
subset of machines and build targets? Perhaps someone is already
running these clean builds? At one point we had a machine at OSUOSL
dedicated to this purpose, but no one ever set it up.
This SF.net email is sponsored by
Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
gumstix-users mailing list