docs: releases: move hardknott and honister to outdated section

From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@theobroma-systems.com>

Hardknott and honister releases are now outdated, let's move their
manuals to the outdated section.

Cc: Quentin Schulz <foss+yocto@0leil.net>
Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@theobroma-systems.com>
---
 documentation/releases.rst | 44 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

On 6/3/22 15:33, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@theobroma-systems.com>
>
> Hardknott and honister releases are now outdated, let's move their
> manuals to the outdated section.
>
> Cc: Quentin Schulz <foss+yocto@0leil.net>
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@theobroma-systems.com>


Correct. Merged in "master-next". Thanks for the update!
Cheers
Michael.

Richard, Michael(s),

I have been working on automating this release page so we don't have to 
maintain it (I stumbled upon it by chance).

The issue I'm having right now is that we are missing a handful of tags 
in yocto-docs which makes it non-straightforward to order the releases.

+# list missing tags in yocto-docs
+missing_tags = [
+        'yocto-0.9',
+        'yocto-1.0', 'yocto-1.0.1',
+        'yocto-1.1', 'yocto-1.1.1',
+        'yocto-1.2',
+        'yocto-1.4.4', 'yocto-1.4.5',
+        'yocto-1.5', 'yocto-1.5.2', 'yocto-1.5.3', 'yocto-1.5.4',
+        'yocto-1.6', 'yocto-1.6.1', 'yocto-1.6.2',
+        'yocto-1.7', 'yocto-1.7.1',
+        'yocto-1.9',
+        'yocto-2.5.3',
+        'yocto-3.1', 'yocto-3.1.1', 'yocto-3.1.2', 'yocto-3.1.3',
+        ]

Those seems to be the only missing tags (didn't check really carefully 
though, so might be missing one or two).

Is it possible to tag those (do we know which commit was used for each 
release?)? Or do I need to work on some ordering "algorithm" (there does 
not seem to exist a semver ordering in Python?)?

Cheers,
Quentin

On Tue, 2022-06-07 at 11:02 +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Richard, Michael(s),
> 
> I have been working on automating this release page so we don't have to 
> maintain it (I stumbled upon it by chance).
> 
> The issue I'm having right now is that we are missing a handful of tags 
> in yocto-docs which makes it non-straightforward to order the releases.
> 
> +# list missing tags in yocto-docs
> +missing_tags = [
> +        'yocto-0.9',
> +        'yocto-1.0', 'yocto-1.0.1',
> +        'yocto-1.1', 'yocto-1.1.1',
> +        'yocto-1.2',
> +        'yocto-1.4.4', 'yocto-1.4.5',
> +        'yocto-1.5', 'yocto-1.5.2', 'yocto-1.5.3', 'yocto-1.5.4',
> +        'yocto-1.6', 'yocto-1.6.1', 'yocto-1.6.2',
> +        'yocto-1.7', 'yocto-1.7.1',
> +        'yocto-1.9',
> +        'yocto-2.5.3',
> +        'yocto-3.1', 'yocto-3.1.1', 'yocto-3.1.2', 'yocto-3.1.3',
> +        ]
> 
> Those seems to be the only missing tags (didn't check really carefully 
> though, so might be missing one or two).

If someone can work out the commit for each of the tags we can
definitely tag them. We should be able to work that information out, it
is just a bit of a pain to do.

> Is it possible to tag those (do we know which commit was used for each 
> release?)? Or do I need to work on some ordering "algorithm" (there does 
> not seem to exist a semver ordering in Python?)?

I'd have thought there would be way to do that even if we had to use
our own version function (we have one in bitbake, mainly so we have one
definitive way to compare versions).

Cheers,

Richard

Richard, Quentin,

On 6/7/22 12:22, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-06-07 at 11:02 +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>> Richard, Michael(s),
>>
>> I have been working on automating this release page so we don't have to
>> maintain it (I stumbled upon it by chance).
>>
>> The issue I'm having right now is that we are missing a handful of tags
>> in yocto-docs which makes it non-straightforward to order the releases.
>>
>> +# list missing tags in yocto-docs
>> +missing_tags = [
>> +        'yocto-0.9',
>> +        'yocto-1.0', 'yocto-1.0.1',
>> +        'yocto-1.1', 'yocto-1.1.1',
>> +        'yocto-1.2',
>> +        'yocto-1.4.4', 'yocto-1.4.5',
>> +        'yocto-1.5', 'yocto-1.5.2', 'yocto-1.5.3', 'yocto-1.5.4',
>> +        'yocto-1.6', 'yocto-1.6.1', 'yocto-1.6.2',
>> +        'yocto-1.7', 'yocto-1.7.1',
>> +        'yocto-1.9',
>> +        'yocto-2.5.3',
>> +        'yocto-3.1', 'yocto-3.1.1', 'yocto-3.1.2', 'yocto-3.1.3',
>> +        ]
>>
>> Those seems to be the only missing tags (didn't check really carefully
>> though, so might be missing one or two).
> If someone can work out the commit for each of the tags we can
> definitely tag them. We should be able to work that information out, it
> is just a bit of a pain to do.

I could pickup a commit whose date matches the date for each release, as 
found on http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/.
I wouldn't be 100% sure to pick up exactly the right commit, but would 
we care, since we are not going to use the tags to regenerate the old docs?

Then, I could create the tags and push them.

Any better way? As far as I've seen the old release notes didn't mention 
the documentation sources.

Cheers
Michael.

On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 18:46 +0200, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> Richard, Quentin,
> 
> On 6/7/22 12:22, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-06-07 at 11:02 +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> > > Richard, Michael(s),
> > > 
> > > I have been working on automating this release page so we don't have to
> > > maintain it (I stumbled upon it by chance).
> > > 
> > > The issue I'm having right now is that we are missing a handful of tags
> > > in yocto-docs which makes it non-straightforward to order the releases.
> > > 
> > > +# list missing tags in yocto-docs
> > > +missing_tags = [
> > > +        'yocto-0.9',
> > > +        'yocto-1.0', 'yocto-1.0.1',
> > > +        'yocto-1.1', 'yocto-1.1.1',
> > > +        'yocto-1.2',
> > > +        'yocto-1.4.4', 'yocto-1.4.5',
> > > +        'yocto-1.5', 'yocto-1.5.2', 'yocto-1.5.3', 'yocto-1.5.4',
> > > +        'yocto-1.6', 'yocto-1.6.1', 'yocto-1.6.2',
> > > +        'yocto-1.7', 'yocto-1.7.1',
> > > +        'yocto-1.9',
> > > +        'yocto-2.5.3',
> > > +        'yocto-3.1', 'yocto-3.1.1', 'yocto-3.1.2', 'yocto-3.1.3',
> > > +        ]
> > > 
> > > Those seems to be the only missing tags (didn't check really carefully
> > > though, so might be missing one or two).
> > If someone can work out the commit for each of the tags we can
> > definitely tag them. We should be able to work that information out, it
> > is just a bit of a pain to do.
> 
> I could pickup a commit whose date matches the date for each release, as 
> found on http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/.
> I wouldn't be 100% sure to pick up exactly the right commit, but would 
> we care, since we are not going to use the tags to regenerate the old docs?
> 
> Then, I could create the tags and push them.
> 
> Any better way? As far as I've seen the old release notes didn't mention 
> the documentation sources.

There is a better way. Taking yocto 1.2 which denzil, you can see the
release tag here:

https://git.yoctoproject.org/poky/commit/?h=denzil&id=d20a24310eb43fed9a3f3e75752c9ad45a18cbe4

I appreciate it says denzil-7.0 which is a poky version but poky 7.0 is
yocto 1.2.

The last commit to docs before that commit is this one:

https://git.yoctoproject.org/poky/commit/?h=denzil&id=7e56770a6024e51e0a23ce0139b349a843200404

and that says in the commit message the corresponding docs revision is:

b3fc2ec7c5aedb8ea0a2d502bdcd7e8f4092ed96

so yocto-1.2 was:

poky d20a24310eb43fed9a3f3e75752c9ad45a18cbe4
oe-core fd989e1bceef6df36619ba8944c8141abefd282e
yocto-docs b3fc2ec7c5aedb8ea0a2d502bdcd7e8f4092ed96

A bit of a pain but we can reverse engineer these.

Cheers,

Richard

With this guide I can track these down. Some are easy like with 2.5.3 it is
just 26c5549580e108c40aa7c95860d12c675596820c (origin/sumo). Others take a
little reading.

Almost all of the tags from this era were made by the docs maintainer
without any signing by release engineering. Should we backdate these when
we create them? Should they be created in the name of the person who would
have made them at the time? If not, whose name is the most appropriate?

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 10:02 AM Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 18:46 +0200, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> > Richard, Quentin,
> >
> > On 6/7/22 12:22, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2022-06-07 at 11:02 +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> > > > Richard, Michael(s),
> > > >
> > > > I have been working on automating this release page so we don't have
> to
> > > > maintain it (I stumbled upon it by chance).
> > > >
> > > > The issue I'm having right now is that we are missing a handful of
> tags
> > > > in yocto-docs which makes it non-straightforward to order the
> releases.
> > > >
> > > > +# list missing tags in yocto-docs
> > > > +missing_tags = [
> > > > +        'yocto-0.9',
> > > > +        'yocto-1.0', 'yocto-1.0.1',
> > > > +        'yocto-1.1', 'yocto-1.1.1',
> > > > +        'yocto-1.2',
> > > > +        'yocto-1.4.4', 'yocto-1.4.5',
> > > > +        'yocto-1.5', 'yocto-1.5.2', 'yocto-1.5.3', 'yocto-1.5.4',
> > > > +        'yocto-1.6', 'yocto-1.6.1', 'yocto-1.6.2',
> > > > +        'yocto-1.7', 'yocto-1.7.1',
> > > > +        'yocto-1.9',
> > > > +        'yocto-2.5.3',
> > > > +        'yocto-3.1', 'yocto-3.1.1', 'yocto-3.1.2', 'yocto-3.1.3',
> > > > +        ]
> > > >
> > > > Those seems to be the only missing tags (didn't check really
> carefully
> > > > though, so might be missing one or two).
> > > If someone can work out the commit for each of the tags we can
> > > definitely tag them. We should be able to work that information out, it
> > > is just a bit of a pain to do.
> >
> > I could pickup a commit whose date matches the date for each release, as
> > found on http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/.
> > I wouldn't be 100% sure to pick up exactly the right commit, but would
> > we care, since we are not going to use the tags to regenerate the old
> docs?
> >
> > Then, I could create the tags and push them.
> >
> > Any better way? As far as I've seen the old release notes didn't mention
> > the documentation sources.
>
> There is a better way. Taking yocto 1.2 which denzil, you can see the
> release tag here:
>
>
> https://git.yoctoproject.org/poky/commit/?h=denzil&id=d20a24310eb43fed9a3f3e75752c9ad45a18cbe4
>
> I appreciate it says denzil-7.0 which is a poky version but poky 7.0 is
> yocto 1.2.
>
> The last commit to docs before that commit is this one:
>
>
> https://git.yoctoproject.org/poky/commit/?h=denzil&id=7e56770a6024e51e0a23ce0139b349a843200404
>
> and that says in the commit message the corresponding docs revision is:
>
> b3fc2ec7c5aedb8ea0a2d502bdcd7e8f4092ed96
>
> so yocto-1.2 was:
>
> poky d20a24310eb43fed9a3f3e75752c9ad45a18cbe4
> oe-core fd989e1bceef6df36619ba8944c8141abefd282e
> yocto-docs b3fc2ec7c5aedb8ea0a2d502bdcd7e8f4092ed96
>
> A bit of a pain but we can reverse engineer these.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 11:03 -0700, Michael Halstead wrote:
> With this guide I can track these down. Some are easy like with 2.5.3
> it is just 26c5549580e108c40aa7c95860d12c675596820c (origin/sumo).
> Others take a little reading.
> 
> Almost all of the tags from this era were made by the docs maintainer
> without any signing by release engineering. Should we backdate these
> when we create them? Should they be created in the name of the person
> who would have made them at the time? If not, whose name is the most
> appropriate? 

Backdating to the time of the commit probably makes most sense. I think
they're fine to be made by you, the name isn't too important.

I can pick off a few of these if you want to work out the commits,
share the work.

Cheers,

Richard