| Message ID | 20211124171617.2088604-1-michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [yocto-autobuilder-helper] scripts/run-docs-build: remove gatesgarth | expand |
On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 18:16 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote: > Together with the corresponding Bitbake version, which are no > longer supported. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> > --- > scripts/run-docs-build | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/run-docs-build b/scripts/run-docs-build > index 3db4a97..5e1d649 100755 > --- a/scripts/run-docs-build > +++ b/scripts/run-docs-build > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/bitbake/next > cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/bitbake/next > > # stable branches > -for branch in 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52; do > +for branch in 1.46 1.50 1.52; do > git checkout $branch > make clean > make publish > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/next > cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/next > > # stable branches > -for branch in dunfell gatesgarth hardknott honister; do > +for branch in dunfell hardknott honister; do > cd $ypdocs > git checkout $branch > make clean I'm a bit torn on this. They are no longer officially supported releases now but it may make sense to rebuild all the sphinx docs in this script rather than some subset? Cheers, Richard
Hi Richard, Thanks for the review! On 11/24/21 7:10 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 18:16 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote: >> Together with the corresponding Bitbake version, which are no >> longer supported. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> >> --- >> scripts/run-docs-build | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/scripts/run-docs-build b/scripts/run-docs-build >> index 3db4a97..5e1d649 100755 >> --- a/scripts/run-docs-build >> +++ b/scripts/run-docs-build >> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/bitbake/next >> cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/bitbake/next >> >> # stable branches >> -for branch in 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52; do >> +for branch in 1.46 1.50 1.52; do >> git checkout $branch >> make clean >> make publish >> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/next >> cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/next >> >> # stable branches >> -for branch in dunfell gatesgarth hardknott honister; do >> +for branch in dunfell hardknott honister; do >> cd $ypdocs >> git checkout $branch >> make clean > I'm a bit torn on this. They are no longer officially supported releases now but > it may make sense to rebuild all the sphinx docs in this script rather than some > subset? I understand. Your decision to make. I just proposed this change for consistency with the current implementation. Any other opinions? Cheers Michael.
Hi Michael, Richard, On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 06:10:56PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 18:16 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote: > > Together with the corresponding Bitbake version, which are no > > longer supported. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> > > --- > > scripts/run-docs-build | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/scripts/run-docs-build b/scripts/run-docs-build > > index 3db4a97..5e1d649 100755 > > --- a/scripts/run-docs-build > > +++ b/scripts/run-docs-build > > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/bitbake/next > > cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/bitbake/next > > > > # stable branches > > -for branch in 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52; do > > +for branch in 1.46 1.50 1.52; do > > git checkout $branch > > make clean > > make publish > > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/next > > cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/next > > > > # stable branches > > -for branch in dunfell gatesgarth hardknott honister; do > > +for branch in dunfell hardknott honister; do > > cd $ypdocs > > git checkout $branch > > make clean > > I'm a bit torn on this. They are no longer officially supported releases now but > it may make sense to rebuild all the sphinx docs in this script rather than some > subset? > I think we want to make sure we have all docs up-to-date, even for the branches that aren't maintained anymore. Especially since it's not taking a lot of CPU time to build them, it's fine IMO. We could always make minor changes to old docs. E.g. the releases.rst might get updates until we figure something out. Cheers, Quentin
Hi Quentin, On 11/24/21 7:47 PM, Quentin Schulz wrote: > Hi Michael, Richard, > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 06:10:56PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 18:16 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote: >>> Together with the corresponding Bitbake version, which are no >>> longer supported. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> >>> --- >>> scripts/run-docs-build | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/scripts/run-docs-build b/scripts/run-docs-build >>> index 3db4a97..5e1d649 100755 >>> --- a/scripts/run-docs-build >>> +++ b/scripts/run-docs-build >>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/bitbake/next >>> cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/bitbake/next >>> >>> # stable branches >>> -for branch in 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52; do >>> +for branch in 1.46 1.50 1.52; do >>> git checkout $branch >>> make clean >>> make publish >>> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/next >>> cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/next >>> >>> # stable branches >>> -for branch in dunfell gatesgarth hardknott honister; do >>> +for branch in dunfell hardknott honister; do >>> cd $ypdocs >>> git checkout $branch >>> make clean >> I'm a bit torn on this. They are no longer officially supported releases now but >> it may make sense to rebuild all the sphinx docs in this script rather than some >> subset? >> > I think we want to make sure we have all docs up-to-date, even for the > branches that aren't maintained anymore. Especially since it's not > taking a lot of CPU time to build them, it's fine IMO. We could always > make minor changes to old docs. E.g. the releases.rst might get updates > until we figure something out. Thanks for casting your vote. It makes sense. I'll send another patch with this decision in the comments. Cheers Michael.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:50 PM Michael Opdenacker < michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> wrote: > Hi Quentin, > > On 11/24/21 7:47 PM, Quentin Schulz wrote: > > Hi Michael, Richard, > > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 06:10:56PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > >> On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 18:16 +0100, Michael Opdenacker wrote: > >>> Together with the corresponding Bitbake version, which are no > >>> longer supported. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> > >>> --- > >>> scripts/run-docs-build | 4 ++-- > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/scripts/run-docs-build b/scripts/run-docs-build > >>> index 3db4a97..5e1d649 100755 > >>> --- a/scripts/run-docs-build > >>> +++ b/scripts/run-docs-build > >>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/bitbake/next > >>> cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/bitbake/next > >>> > >>> # stable branches > >>> -for branch in 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52; do > >>> +for branch in 1.46 1.50 1.52; do > >>> git checkout $branch > >>> make clean > >>> make publish > >>> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/next > >>> cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/next > >>> > >>> # stable branches > >>> -for branch in dunfell gatesgarth hardknott honister; do > >>> +for branch in dunfell hardknott honister; do > >>> cd $ypdocs > >>> git checkout $branch > >>> make clean > >> I'm a bit torn on this. They are no longer officially supported > releases now but > >> it may make sense to rebuild all the sphinx docs in this script rather > than some > >> subset? > >> > > I think we want to make sure we have all docs up-to-date, even for the > > branches that aren't maintained anymore. Especially since it's not > > taking a lot of CPU time to build them, it's fine IMO. We could always > > make minor changes to old docs. E.g. the releases.rst might get updates > > until we figure something out. > > Thanks for casting your vote. It makes sense. I'll send another patch > with this decision in the comments. > I agree with Quentin here. Until we have a better mechanism (to rebuild only modified branches not all of them each time, ..) I think we should continue to build them all. > Cheers > Michael. > > -- > Michael Opdenacker, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > https://bootlin.com > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#2196): > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/docs/message/2196 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/87285736/1279857 > Group Owner: docs+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/docs/unsub [ > nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >
diff --git a/scripts/run-docs-build b/scripts/run-docs-build index 3db4a97..5e1d649 100755 --- a/scripts/run-docs-build +++ b/scripts/run-docs-build @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/bitbake/next cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/bitbake/next # stable branches -for branch in 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52; do +for branch in 1.46 1.50 1.52; do git checkout $branch make clean make publish @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ mkdir $outputdir/next cp -r ./_build/final/* $outputdir/next # stable branches -for branch in dunfell gatesgarth hardknott honister; do +for branch in dunfell hardknott honister; do cd $ypdocs git checkout $branch make clean
Together with the corresponding Bitbake version, which are no longer supported. Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@bootlin.com> --- scripts/run-docs-build | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)