On 27 February 2017 at 01:05, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:35:35AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 24 February 2017 at 00:16, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> >> wrote: >> > Ok, I've pushed libfdt upstream patches to (a) make passing NULL to >> > setprop() with zero length explicitly safe and (b) add an >> > fdt_setprop_empty() helper macro. Do you want me to make a pullreq to >> > update the qemu submodule? >> >> Yes, please. Are we OK with using a random libfdt commit or do >> we update only to proper release tags? > > I'm find with a random SHA, but that's not really my department - I'm > upstream libfdt maintainer, but update policy in the qemu tree seems > like a qemu side decision. > >> There's no real rush with >> this so if you have a release due shortly it might be better >> to wait for that. > > dtc/libfdt releases are a rather haphazard affair. Usually they > happen when somebody complains that there hasn't been a release with > some feature they want. Our tests are both fast to run and have > reasonaably good coverage, so random commits are usually good. So a > "release" is usually just slapping a new version number onto whatever > is in master and making a tag and tarball.
>From my end I think we'd rather use a proper release version (if only because it's then easier to refer to and to state as a dependency for packaged versions if required). It looks like we've done that for our previous updates (starting with 1.3.0 and then moving to 1.4.0 and 1.4.2) so I think we should continue using released versions. thanks -- PMM
