I'd like to be upgrading to 1.8 but that causes problems with South, and
we're not quite ready to dispense with our existing migrations yet.
Part of the implementation for [YOCTO #9620].
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
If you're moving a short description value from DESCRIPTION to SUMMARY
then part of that is setting DESCRIPTION to blank, however that wasn't
possible - the code was assuming that a null value meant "keep the
original value". Change the logic so that the value in the bulk change
object is always set and is compared to the original value to see if it
is different. This provides less safety against bulk change data going
stale in the face of the metadata being updated, but without using an
additional "magic" field value that's the price we have to pay, and it's
unlikely to bother too many people I would imagine.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
If the site is configured to use a different core layer then we ought to
use it for the default layer dependency instead of hardcoding
openembedded-core.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Add a script for doing a one-time import of OE-Classic recipe
information, so comparisons against OE-Core can be performed; this
is stored using a new ClassicRecipe model supporting additional fields
for tracking migration status. The migration status fields can be
updated as well as viewed and summarised in graph format.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
This provides a way to set "meta" fields (SUMMARY, DESCRIPTION,
HOMEPAGE, BUGTRACKER, SECTION, and LICENSE) for a number of recipes at
once, and then download those changes in the form of one or more patch
files which can be submitted for merging into the layer.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
So it turns out that one or two layers have changed in structure between
branches, so we need to be able to specify this on a per-branch basis.
Good times...
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
This means the usage URL can point to a file whose contents may be
different per branch (e.g. a README file).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Change the data structure to support multiple branches. At the top level
there is a set list of Branch objects, and then a LayerBranch object
between each layer and the maintainers, dependencies, recipes and
machines, so that the set of each can be different per branch. The
branch is a session option, and can be selected via a drop-down that is
shown for all pages.
Additionally, with this change we avoid the need to run the update
script within a build environment set up with oe-init-build-env - since
we need a specific version of BitBake per branch we now use our own copy
of BitBake which is fetched by the script itself. The update script will
need to be called multiple times however - once per branch.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
This should prevent spamming even though this is less likely with this
kind of site.
The CAPTCHA does not show when editing, only submitting, and is also not
shown for authenticated users.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Hide all empty maintainer forms and have a button to "add" another
maintainer which just uses jQuery to show the next hidden form. Up to
10 maintainers can be added which should be more than enough.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
This allows adding an important notice to a layer e.g. "this layer is
deprecated, please use layer xyz instead". Only one layer note can be
added through the interface although the data structures allow multiple,
so notes may be added programmatically without disturbing user-added
ones.
With this change we also add a get_absolute_url() function to the
LayerItem model and change the calls to reverse() for layers to use it.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
If editing rather than submitting we want users to be able to make an
existing maintainer inactive.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Allow users with publish permission to edit any layer, and users with
the same email address as one of the maintainers of a layer to edit that
layer.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Previously I had added a custom widget to handle this, but it turns out
it's not flexible enough - we want to style items individually (not done
yet) and reorder checked items to the top on refresh (done).
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Formsets allow us to have separate fields for name/email for each
maintainer, as well as being able to collect the responsibility field
value. Also split the form to be output field-by-field to allow styling.
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Some git web interfaces use different paths for files (blobs) and
directories when it comes to browsing; this means we need to have a
separate field for the base URL for files.
Additionally, Gitweb typically puts the path within the URL instead of
at the end (although the parameters can be reordered) and cannot handle
the file parameter (f=) being specified with no value. So, to add some
flexibility, add the ability to use a positional macro %path% to
optionally specify where to put the path. If needed, square brackets
can be used in conjunction with %path% to exclude parts of the string
when there is no path, i.e. we want to browse the root. For example, the
following base URL:
http://git.example.com/?p=somerepo.git;a=tree;[;f=%path%];hb=HEAD
would be translated to this with a path of "path/to/dir":
http://git.example.com/?p=somerepo.git;a=tree;f=path/to/dir;hb=HEAD
and this if no path were specified:
http://git.example.com/?p=somerepo.git;a=tree;hb=HEAD
Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
