From patchwork Wed Sep 20 10:06:46 2023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Roland Hieber X-Patchwork-Id: 30800 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2E7CE79B6 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 10:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de (metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de [185.203.201.7]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.34181.1695204415995599311 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 03:06:56 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=none (message not signed); spf=pass (domain: pengutronix.de, ip: 185.203.201.7, mailfrom: rhi@pengutronix.de) Received: from drehscheibe.grey.stw.pengutronix.de ([2a0a:edc0:0:c01:1d::a2]) by metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qiu6f-0007b6-Q3; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:06:53 +0200 Received: from [2a0a:edc0:0:1101:1d::ac] (helo=dude04.red.stw.pengutronix.de) by drehscheibe.grey.stw.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qiu6f-007erC-6x; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:06:53 +0200 Received: from rhi by dude04.red.stw.pengutronix.de with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1qiu6f-004MIp-0Q; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:06:53 +0200 From: Roland Hieber To: docs@lists.yoctoproject.org Cc: yocto@pengutronix.de, Roland Hieber , Alexander Kanavin Subject: [PATCH 3/4] contributor-guide: discourage marking patches as Inappropriate Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:06:46 +0200 Message-Id: <20230920100647.1038583-3-rhi@pengutronix.de> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20230920100647.1038583-1-rhi@pengutronix.de> References: <20230920100647.1038583-1-rhi@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a0a:edc0:0:c01:1d::a2 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rhi@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: docs@lists.yoctoproject.org List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from li982-79.members.linode.com [45.33.32.79] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 10:07:06 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/docs/message/4263 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 Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber --- .../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 ``: 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