Re: [PATCH 9/9] wic: now truly go for the wic version we claim to have

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

Yes, after the reverts and this patch a diff of wic and lib/wic against
the claimed OE version is empty.

Henning

Am Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:28:42 +0100
schrieb Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net>:

> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 01:01:57PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > To my reading, no changes are moved to lib. lib is restored to the
> > OE hash the original isar commit only /claimed/ to have used.  
> 
> Now I see, thanks. I didn't understand that from the patch
> description, what about the following:
> 
> 
> Subject: [PATCH 9/9] wic: Fix wic import
> 
> Commit 2b164b18fd639c9 claims to introduce wic hash 131629ca6238ea05,
> but the former differs from the latter. This change fixes that import.
> 
> Issue:
>  - the wic version in Isar was modified
>  - that causes:
>   - confusion, maintainability and updateability issues
>   - potential quality issues
> 
> Impact:
>  This patch and the previous reverts get wic back to a state where all
>  these Issues are solved. We could now just update our wic without
> having to worry about local patches. In case of a wic-update Isar and
> layers on top would still have to review their plugins.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>
> 
> 
> (I've added the word "commit" because this is what I usually look for
> searching for changes fixing other commits).
> 
> 
> > Maybe just a mistake in the log of that original commit. But then
> > please enlighten us what hash was truly used and if that should
> > stay in favor of this reset.  
> 
> I'm not aware of any other commit. If Henning's version works, I
> don't see the point in redoing his work with a different upstream
> commit.
> 
> 
> With kind regards,
> Baurzhan.
>