| Message ID | 20230920100647.1038583-3-rhi@pengutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/4] contributor-guide: recipe-style-guide: add section about CVE patches | expand |
On 20.09.23 at 12:06, Roland Hieber wrote: > It was never really clear what all those reasons really meant, and every > patch submitted upstream liftens the maintenance on the Yocto side. > So remove the current list, and replace it with two reasons in which an > upstream submission likely won't benefit the upstream project. > > Suggested-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de> > --- > .../contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst | 30 +++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > index 4faadcd122d8..bc14c58a9759 100644 > --- a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > +++ b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > @@ -299,22 +299,20 @@ following status strings: > > ``Inappropriate [reason]`` > The patch is not appropriate for upstream, include a brief reason on the > - same line enclosed with ``[]``. The reason can be: > - > - - ``not author`` (you are not the author and do not intend to upstream this, > - the source must be listed in the comments) > - - ``native`` > - - ``licensing`` > - - ``configuration`` > - - ``enable feature`` > - - ``disable feature`` > - - ``bugfix`` (add bug URL here) > - - ``embedded specific`` > - - ``other`` (give details in comments) > - > -The various ``Inappropriate [reason]`` status items are meant to indicate that > -the person responsible for adding this patch to the system does not intend to > -upstream the patch for a specific reason. > + same line enclosed with ``[]``. In the past, there were several different > + reasons not to submit patches upstream, but we have to consider that every > + non-upstreamed patch means a maintainance burden for recipe maintainers. > + Currently, the only reasons to mark patches as inappropriate for upstream > + submission are: > + > + - ``oe specific``: the issue is specific to how Yocto performs builds > + or sets things up at runtime, and can be resolved only with a patch that > + is not however relevant or appropriate for general upstream submission. > + - ``upstream ticket <link>``: the issue is not Yocto-specific and should be > + fixed upstream, but the patch in its current form is not suitable for > + merging upstream, and the author lacks sufficient expertise to develope a > + proper patch. Instead the issue is handled via a bug report (include > + link). There is a formatting issue here: the second line (starting with "fixed upstream") has an extra leading space compared to the first one, and this messes-up the way the paragraph is rendered. Check by yourself ;-) Otherwise, the rest looks good to me. Thanks Michael.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 04:19:11PM +0200, Michael Opdenacker via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > On 20.09.23 at 12:06, Roland Hieber wrote: > > It was never really clear what all those reasons really meant, and every > > patch submitted upstream liftens the maintenance on the Yocto side. > > So remove the current list, and replace it with two reasons in which an > > upstream submission likely won't benefit the upstream project. > > > > Suggested-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de> > > --- > > .../contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst | 30 +++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > > index 4faadcd122d8..bc14c58a9759 100644 > > --- a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > > +++ b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst > > @@ -299,22 +299,20 @@ following status strings: > > ``Inappropriate [reason]`` > > The patch is not appropriate for upstream, include a brief reason on the > > - same line enclosed with ``[]``. The reason can be: > > - > > - - ``not author`` (you are not the author and do not intend to upstream this, > > - the source must be listed in the comments) > > - - ``native`` > > - - ``licensing`` > > - - ``configuration`` > > - - ``enable feature`` > > - - ``disable feature`` > > - - ``bugfix`` (add bug URL here) > > - - ``embedded specific`` > > - - ``other`` (give details in comments) > > - > > -The various ``Inappropriate [reason]`` status items are meant to indicate that > > -the person responsible for adding this patch to the system does not intend to > > -upstream the patch for a specific reason. > > + same line enclosed with ``[]``. In the past, there were several different > > + reasons not to submit patches upstream, but we have to consider that every > > + non-upstreamed patch means a maintainance burden for recipe maintainers. > > + Currently, the only reasons to mark patches as inappropriate for upstream > > + submission are: > > + > > + - ``oe specific``: the issue is specific to how Yocto performs builds > > + or sets things up at runtime, and can be resolved only with a patch that > > + is not however relevant or appropriate for general upstream submission. > > + - ``upstream ticket <link>``: the issue is not Yocto-specific and should be > > + fixed upstream, but the patch in its current form is not suitable for > > + merging upstream, and the author lacks sufficient expertise to develope a > > + proper patch. Instead the issue is handled via a bug report (include > > + link). > > > There is a formatting issue here: the second line (starting with "fixed > upstream") has an extra leading space compared to the first one, and this > messes-up the way the paragraph is rendered. Check by yourself ;-) Oh indeed. I'll chalk that up to not enough coffee… :-> Thanks for catching it! - Roland
diff --git a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst index 4faadcd122d8..bc14c58a9759 100644 --- a/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst +++ b/documentation/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst @@ -299,22 +299,20 @@ following status strings: ``Inappropriate [reason]`` The patch is not appropriate for upstream, include a brief reason on the - same line enclosed with ``[]``. The reason can be: - - - ``not author`` (you are not the author and do not intend to upstream this, - the source must be listed in the comments) - - ``native`` - - ``licensing`` - - ``configuration`` - - ``enable feature`` - - ``disable feature`` - - ``bugfix`` (add bug URL here) - - ``embedded specific`` - - ``other`` (give details in comments) - -The various ``Inappropriate [reason]`` status items are meant to indicate that -the person responsible for adding this patch to the system does not intend to -upstream the patch for a specific reason. + same line enclosed with ``[]``. In the past, there were several different + reasons not to submit patches upstream, but we have to consider that every + non-upstreamed patch means a maintainance burden for recipe maintainers. + Currently, the only reasons to mark patches as inappropriate for upstream + submission are: + + - ``oe specific``: the issue is specific to how Yocto performs builds + or sets things up at runtime, and can be resolved only with a patch that + is not however relevant or appropriate for general upstream submission. + - ``upstream ticket <link>``: the issue is not Yocto-specific and should be + fixed upstream, but the patch in its current form is not suitable for + merging upstream, and the author lacks sufficient expertise to develope a + proper patch. Instead the issue is handled via a bug report (include + link). Of course, if another person later takes care of submitting this patch upstream, the status should be changed to ``Submitted [where]``, and an additional
It was never really clear what all those reasons really meant, and every patch submitted upstream liftens the maintenance on the Yocto side. So remove the current list, and replace it with two reasons in which an upstream submission likely won't benefit the upstream project. Suggested-by: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de> --- .../contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.rst | 30 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)