Hi Wolfgang, On Saturday 25 April 2009, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > in message <200904250555.17450.davi...@pacbell.net> you wrote: > > > > I think the questions on this topic reflect a reality that > > such status updates aren't yet visible enough. (The original > > question was generic, not ARM-specific.) > > I'm not going to push this information down people's throats. I love > living free. Those who want that information can pick it up, those > who don't will not get bothered. > > Is it really too much to ask that people have a look at the U-Boot web > page every now and then?
It's not on the front page, which is where for example you'll see status for Linux (www.kernel.org) or GCC (gcc.gnu.org). And it's not visible in the source tree either. > Is it really so difficult to find our when > the merge window ends? By observation: yes. But also, when you *do* find the Official Statment it does so in reference to Linux processes ... which make that state very easy to find, via the "rc1" git tags. > Just type "u-boot merge window" at google and > click on the very first link. Several other key infrastructure projects make it easy to find that info even without using a search engine. As a developer, I'd be more likely to look at the GIT summary for status of the GIT tree; its normally the first place to look for such things. > > > Maybe I pout a little more meaning in the words "release candiate". > > > > ISTR that Linus has said on occasion that "RC" doesn't > > mean "release candidate"! > > He. This is his interpretation, then. I take the freedom to use a > different one :-) You won't find SuSE, RedHat, or Canonical using an rc1 kernel for even a beta distribution ... ;) > > You're not actually running the "merge window" quite like > > Linux does; that "backlog" is one differentiator. > > Well, yes, I know. The tiome when I get the pull requests from the > custodians is another one - being a major contribution to the former. And Linux has had years to develop -- and motivate! -- its merge procedures ... it's a different team and process. Processes need constant tweaking though. And your process page strongly suggests you're using the Linux processes. Hence surprise and confusion when you aren't quite doing so, from folk who use those processes daily. Easily addressed though ... that web page can point out some differences. Make a few small things *obviously* different, and people will assume that other things may also differ. > > When the RC label just means "we only integrate bugfixes now", > > that communicates such status with very little work. If folk > > miss some webpage, or mailing list post, they'll still know. > > Please allow me to stick with RC = release candidate, i. e. something > that is at least reasonably compile tested and has at least the > majority of patches included. I couldn't stop you, of course. All I'm doing is pointing out what others have also pointed out: that the current process is a bit opaque about some key points. And I'm trying to help with some small suggestions. Since you don't want to use an "rc" tag -- even "rc0"? -- maybe some other git tag could be used to flag "merge window ended". A "-pre", maybe. If there's some obvious indicator there, you wouldn't need to update the wiki except maybe to summarize key points of the process you want to publicize. And contributors wouldn't be scratching their heads, or starting long discussions on the list. ;) - Dave _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
