| Summary: | Yocto-check-layer add patch Upstream-Status check | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Build System, Metadata & Runtime] OE-Core | Reporter: | akuster <akuster808> |
| Component: | Scripts and Tools | Assignee: | Chee Yang <chee.yang.lee> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | Medium+ | CC: | chee.yang.lee, mingli.yu, randy.macleod, richard.purdie, ross.burton |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | 4.2 M3 | ||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||
| OS: | Multiple | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| OS type for building Yocto: | --- | Type of Regression: | --- |
| Verified: | Documentation change: | Don't know | |
|
Description
akuster
2021-12-03 17:44:40 UTC
Should the compatibility status mandate some percentage of patches are not in Pending state? The later checks could at least report the percentage of patches in pending state? (In reply to comment #1) > Should the compatibility status mandate some percentage of patches are not > in Pending state? The later checks could at least report the percentage of > patches in pending state? I hadn't thought to that level of details. yes, I think a percent of patches with no 'Upsteam-Status" and with status may be a good first step. I am not sure about mandating a percentage. I am thinking of a BSP layer with an EOL kernel having patches that have no where to go but a form of the patch may have been accepted in a later. I think its more important to have the data to allow a deep dive into the areas of concern. Having an "Upstream-Status" in patches is being considered an additional Yocto Compatible requirement. This added check for Upstream-Status. https://git.yoctoproject.org/poky/commit/?id=80a2028813d3c861f3aea0d7f5e91d9cccb7d689 Since we now show the warnings in yocto-check-layer, I think we can resolve this, thanks for the patch! |