RFC: New release for DTC?

RFC: New release for DTC?

[Yann E. MORIN]

Hello All!

Following advice from Jon Loeliger, I would suggest that a new release
of DTC be tagged and packaged.

It is important for some projects to rely on a released version, rather
than use a random cset from the repository. Comes to mind, the automated
build-systems, such as buildroot.

Of course, I can help, if need be! ;-)

Are there any others who think that a release would make sense?

Thank you!

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'

Re: RFC: New release for DTC?

[David Gibson]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:15:39PM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Hello All!
> 
> Following advice from Jon Loeliger, I would suggest that a new release
> of DTC be tagged and packaged.
> 
> It is important for some projects to rely on a released version, rather
> than use a random cset from the repository. Comes to mind, the automated
> build-systems, such as buildroot.
> 
> Of course, I can help, if need be! ;-)
> 
> Are there any others who think that a release would make sense?

This has been a bit of a perrenial problem.  dtc development has been
sufficiently gradual that there haven't been many obvious points for
making new releases.  dtc developers (i.e. Jon and my, mostly) don't
feel much pain from the lack of releases, since the git snapshots
generally work well (thanks to limited scope and a good testsuite).

I wonder if we should move to a model of just making a release every 3
or 6 months from whatever happens to be in the tree at the time
(barring obvious known breakage, of course).

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Re: RFC: New release for DTC?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1193 bytes --]

On Thursday 23 August 2012 21:36:25 David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:15:39PM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > Following advice from Jon Loeliger, I would suggest that a new release
> > of DTC be tagged and packaged.
> > 
> > It is important for some projects to rely on a released version, rather
> > than use a random cset from the repository. Comes to mind, the automated
> > build-systems, such as buildroot.
> > 
> > Of course, I can help, if need be! ;-)
> > 
> > Are there any others who think that a release would make sense?
> 
> This has been a bit of a perrenial problem.  dtc development has been
> sufficiently gradual that there haven't been many obvious points for
> making new releases.  dtc developers (i.e. Jon and my, mostly) don't
> feel much pain from the lack of releases, since the git snapshots
> generally work well (thanks to limited scope and a good testsuite).
> 
> I wonder if we should move to a model of just making a release every 3
> or 6 months from whatever happens to be in the tree at the time
> (barring obvious known breakage, of course).

yes please.  even just a version that uses datestamps would be fine.
-mike

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss

Re: RFC: New release for DTC?

[Grant Likely]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:50:07 -0500, Mike Frysinger <vapier-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 23 August 2012 21:36:25 David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:15:39PM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > > Following advice from Jon Loeliger, I would suggest that a new release
> > > of DTC be tagged and packaged.
> > > 
> > > It is important for some projects to rely on a released version, rather
> > > than use a random cset from the repository. Comes to mind, the automated
> > > build-systems, such as buildroot.
> > > 
> > > Of course, I can help, if need be! ;-)
> > > 
> > > Are there any others who think that a release would make sense?
> > 
> > This has been a bit of a perrenial problem.  dtc development has been
> > sufficiently gradual that there haven't been many obvious points for
> > making new releases.  dtc developers (i.e. Jon and my, mostly) don't
> > feel much pain from the lack of releases, since the git snapshots
> > generally work well (thanks to limited scope and a good testsuite).
> > 
> > I wonder if we should move to a model of just making a release every 3
> > or 6 months from whatever happens to be in the tree at the time
> > (barring obvious known breakage, of course).
> 
> yes please.  even just a version that uses datestamps would be fine.
> -mike

Fine by me.

g.

Re: RFC: New release for DTC?

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:50:07 -0500, Mike Frysinger <vapier-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On Thursday 23 August 2012 21:36:25 David Gibson wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:15:39PM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>> > > Following advice from Jon Loeliger, I would suggest that a new release
>> > > of DTC be tagged and packaged.
>> > >
>> > > It is important for some projects to rely on a released version, rather
>> > > than use a random cset from the repository. Comes to mind, the automated
>> > > build-systems, such as buildroot.
>> > >
>> > > Of course, I can help, if need be! ;-)
>> > >
>> > > Are there any others who think that a release would make sense?
>> >
>> > This has been a bit of a perrenial problem.  dtc development has been
>> > sufficiently gradual that there haven't been many obvious points for
>> > making new releases.  dtc developers (i.e. Jon and my, mostly) don't
>> > feel much pain from the lack of releases, since the git snapshots
>> > generally work well (thanks to limited scope and a good testsuite).
>> >
>> > I wonder if we should move to a model of just making a release every 3
>> > or 6 months from whatever happens to be in the tree at the time
>> > (barring obvious known breakage, of course).
>>
>> yes please.  even just a version that uses datestamps would be fine.
>> -mike
>
> Fine by me.

So is this happening? I agree a regular release would be useful, and I
think it has been about 18 months since the last release.

Regards,
Simon

>
> g.
>
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss

Re: RFC: New release for DTC?

[Jon Loeliger]

> >> >
> >> > This has been a bit of a perrenial problem.  dtc development has been
> >> > sufficiently gradual that there haven't been many obvious points for
> >> > making new releases.  dtc developers (i.e. Jon and my, mostly) don't
> >> > feel much pain from the lack of releases, since the git snapshots
> >> > generally work well (thanks to limited scope and a good testsuite).
> >> >
> >> > I wonder if we should move to a model of just making a release every 3
> >> > or 6 months from whatever happens to be in the tree at the time
> >> > (barring obvious known breakage, of course).
> >>
> >> yes please.  even just a version that uses datestamps would be fine.
> >> -mike
> >
> > Fine by me.
> 
> So is this happening? I agree a regular release would be useful, and I
> think it has been about 18 months since the last release.

I'll apply a couple 3 outstanding patches (from Kim Phillips)
and get around to tagging a new release.  If you, or anyone else
have patches or functionality you want in this release, please
post those patches now.

jdl

Re: RFC: New release for DTC?

[Simon Glass]

Hi Jon,

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Jon Loeliger <jdl-CYoMK+44s/E@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > This has been a bit of a perrenial problem.  dtc development has been
>> >> > sufficiently gradual that there haven't been many obvious points for
>> >> > making new releases.  dtc developers (i.e. Jon and my, mostly) don't
>> >> > feel much pain from the lack of releases, since the git snapshots
>> >> > generally work well (thanks to limited scope and a good testsuite).
>> >> >
>> >> > I wonder if we should move to a model of just making a release every 3
>> >> > or 6 months from whatever happens to be in the tree at the time
>> >> > (barring obvious known breakage, of course).
>> >>
>> >> yes please.  even just a version that uses datestamps would be fine.
>> >> -mike
>> >
>> > Fine by me.
>>
>> So is this happening? I agree a regular release would be useful, and I
>> think it has been about 18 months since the last release.
>
> I'll apply a couple 3 outstanding patches (from Kim Phillips)
> and get around to tagging a new release.  If you, or anyone else
> have patches or functionality you want in this release, please
> post those patches now.

OK thanks. I don't have any new patches at present.

>
> jdl

Regards,
Simon

Re: RFC: New release for DTC?

[Stephen Warren]

On 08/23/2012 12:15 PM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Hello All!
> 
> Following advice from Jon Loeliger, I would suggest that a new release
> of DTC be tagged and packaged.
> 
> It is important for some projects to rely on a released version, rather
> than use a random cset from the repository. Comes to mind, the automated
> build-systems, such as buildroot.
> 
> Of course, I can help, if need be! ;-)
> 
> Are there any others who think that a release would make sense?

I'd love to see a new release. This would for example allow the U-Boot
project to say "dtc vXXX is required to build the DT files contained in
U-Boot", which might make agreeing on allowing the use of new dtc
features in U-Boot easier. While this could simply be done by referring
to a specific git commit ID, release versions or tags probably carry
more weight. Tagging a release might also act as a specific trigger for
distros to pick up and carry the new version.

Does it make sense to simply tag the current git HEAD as v1.4? If so,
can we do this?

Re: RFC: New release for DTC?

[Grant Likely]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:45:23 -0600, Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On 08/23/2012 12:15 PM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > Hello All!
> > 
> > Following advice from Jon Loeliger, I would suggest that a new release
> > of DTC be tagged and packaged.
> > 
> > It is important for some projects to rely on a released version, rather
> > than use a random cset from the repository. Comes to mind, the automated
> > build-systems, such as buildroot.
> > 
> > Of course, I can help, if need be! ;-)
> > 
> > Are there any others who think that a release would make sense?
> 
> I'd love to see a new release. This would for example allow the U-Boot
> project to say "dtc vXXX is required to build the DT files contained in
> U-Boot", which might make agreeing on allowing the use of new dtc
> features in U-Boot easier. While this could simply be done by referring
> to a specific git commit ID, release versions or tags probably carry
> more weight. Tagging a release might also act as a specific trigger for
> distros to pick up and carry the new version.
> 
> Does it make sense to simply tag the current git HEAD as v1.4? If so,
> can we do this?

If a new release can be done in the next week or so, then I will use
that to update the in-kernel dtc version.

g.