"Prio 1" vs. "Highest Prio" - maybe something like "order" instead of
"priority" states it more clearly?
Btw. in the commit messge it's already called "layer order" :-)
> -Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return (other.priority, self.repo_name, self.name) < \
> -Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (self.priority, other.repo_name, other.name)
> +Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â # The priority is negated because a higher priority
> means the
> +Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â # element appears earlier in the list.
> +Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return (-self.priority, self.repo_name, self.name) < \
> +Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (-other.priority, other.repo_name, other.name)
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return NotImplemented
>
> Jan
>
> --
> Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies
> Linux Expert Center
--
Alexander Heinisch
Siemens AG
www.siemens.com
The idea is to be semantically similar to OEs layer priority. If we
rename this to order, we also need to change the semantics (lower value
means earlier, which is against the agreed proposal in the GitHub
issue).
>
> Btw. in the commit messge it's already called "layer order" :-)
In the end, we control the layer order. But we use the priority, repo
name and layer name to define the order.
I prefer to keep it as we currently have it and just fold in Jans patch
(which he also can do while merging).
PS: @Alexander: Did you test this series on your use-case. Is it
helpful?
Best regards,
Felix
--
Siemens AG
Linux Expert Center
Friedrich-Ludwig-Bauer-Str. 3
85748 Garching, Germany
> >
> > Btw. in the commit messge it's already called "layer order" :-)
>
> In the end, we control the layer order. But we use the priority, repo
> name and layer name to define the order.
>
> I prefer to keep it as we currently have it and just fold in Jans
> patch
> (which he also can do while merging).
>
> PS: @Alexander: Did you test this series on your use-case. Is it
> helpful?
Yes, that works for me! Thank you!
>
> Best regards,
> Felix
This check was introduced in a previous patch [3/9] of this series and
conflicts with the changes added here! -> has to be removed in this
patch.
--