Re: [PATCH 0-10 of 16 v2 4/8] meta: conf: use bitbake.conf from bitbake and apply local changes

[Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>]

Am Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:31:29 +0200
schrieb Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net>:

> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 08:29:40PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote:
> > > (2) is worse, as IMHO, bitbake should do that itself and it
> > > doesn't (https://github.com/ilbers/isar/issues/27). Concatenating
> > > configs is magic that Yocto users do not expect, and this has to
> > > be documented. Could you provide a patch for the manual?  
> > 
> > No. You do not apply a patch directly to master if that creates an
> > issue, you could have asked me for a v3 instead. Please revert or
> > provide the patch to the manual yourself.  
> 
> In general, this is our intended approach (although in this
> particular case I'd still not block the inclusion of a patch that has
> value for the project by a required bitbake change upstream -- but
> that is a different story). Our current focus is to work together to
> improve Isar and process the patch backlog -- which I thought you
> agreed with Alex on phone. If this doesn't help you and you prefer
> the other model -- let's do it that way, it will only save my time.

We agreed that he would change my patches to save me the time to rebase
and change them. I asked him to add his signed-off to all patches he
actually modifies. 
After that offer i did not hear back about remaining issues, so i
assumed they all got fixed on your side. And now "my commits" are the
cause for issues ... If you see the issue coming you should bring it up
in the review and not after applying the patch.

I further assumed that any such patch would naturally be published for
review again, which did not happen or at least the comments where
ignored.

Henning

> With kind regards,
> Baurzhan.
>