| Summary: | Improve migration guide | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Documentation] Reference | Reporter: | Joshua Lock <joshuagloe> |
| Component: | handbook | Assignee: | Scott Rifenbark <srifenbark> |
| Status: | VERIFIED FIXED | QA Contact: | Bogdan Alexandru Voiculescu <bogdanx.a.voiculescu> |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | Medium | CC: | bluelightning, bogdanx.a.voiculescu, poky.doc.watcher, poky.watcher, srifenbark |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | 2.1 | ||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||
| OS: | Multiple | ||
| Whiteboard: | 18 Jan 2016: RESOLVED | ||
| OS type for building Yocto: | --- | Type of Regression: | --- |
| Verified: | Documentation change: | Done (doc changes complete) | |
|
Description
Joshua Lock
2015-07-30 12:22:35 UTC
Hi Joshua, Good points on the section for migration. I am adding Paul Eggleton to the bug CC list as Paul in the past has drafted the migration section. Hopefully we can get some of these improvements in as a standard for that section when going to a new release. Scott Assuming I have information, I can get the desired enhancements into this part of the ref-manual in a day. Scott We missed the porting guide out of the migration info - my apologies; I've asked Scott to add that. We probably should have linked to some more examples, but I think we may be out of time. Regarding linking to upstream changelogs, that's a great idea and one I've thought about myself; the challenge would be coping with all of the different ways upstream projects provide some of that information; unfortunately not all of it is web-accessible (e.g. it's only provided in a file inside the release tarball). We'd probably need to add some metadata to each recipe and then have a script that would collect it all together in an HTML document, or at least HTMLise the ones that don't provide the information in web-accessible form so they can be uploaded and then linked to. Looking back on this bug (going deep through my in-box) and I see that we did get a reference to the porting guide in the migration section of the ref-manual (http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.0/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#migration-2.0-gcc-5). For this bug, do we call it good for the docs? Or, do we keep it open in hopes of doing some of the things mentioned in Joshua's initial post and Paul's Comment 3? Thanks, Scott (In reply to comment #4) > Looking back on this bug (going deep through my in-box) and I see that we > did get a reference to the porting guide in the migration section of the > ref-manual > (http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.0/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#migration-2. > 0-gcc-5). > > For this bug, do we call it good for the docs? Or, do we keep it open in > hopes of doing some of the things mentioned in Joshua's initial post and > Paul's Comment 3? I'm OK with resolving this bug. Marking RESOLVED and setting the doc flag to "done". Scott Verified |