Hi Marek,
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 11:10, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > On 6/24/19 3:56 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Andreas,, > > > > On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 20:49, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> Am 22.06.19 um 21:14 schrieb Simon Glass: > >>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 20:08, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > >>>> Am 22.06.19 um 20:15 schrieb Simon Glass: > >>>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 16:10, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > >>>>>> Am 22.06.19 um 16:55 schrieb Simon Glass: > >>>>>>> I'd like to better understand the benefits of the 3-month timeline. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It takes time to learn about a release, package and build it, test it > >>>>>> on > >>>>>> various hardware, investigate and report errors, wait for feedback and > >>>>>> fixes, rinse and repeat with the next -rc. Many people don't do this as > >>>>>> their main job. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If we shorten the release cycle, newer boards will get out faster > >>>>>> (which > >>>>>> is good) but the overall quality of boards not actively worked on > >>>>>> (because they were working good enough before) will decay, which is > >>>>>> bad. > >>>>>> The only way to counteract that would be to automatically test on real > >>>>>> hardware rather than just building, and doing that for all these masses > >>>>>> of boards seems unrealistic. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here I think you are talking about distributions. But why not just > >>>>> take every second release? > >>>> > >>>> You're missing my point: What good is it to do a release when you > >>>> yourself consider it of such poor quality that you advise others not to > >>>> take it? > >>> > >>> Who said that? > >> > >> You, quoted above. In response to my concerns about decreasing quality > >> you suggested to take only every second release. That doesn't improve > >> the quality of either. It implies that one may have such bad quality > >> that people should skip it and yet does nothing to improve the next. > > > > Actually I did not say that I consider the release of such poor > > quality. Nor did I advise others to take it. I suspect this is a > > misunderstanding of "But why not just take every second release?". > > > > My point was that if people don't have time to test every release, > > then just put in the time to test every second release. > > So what about be the point of releasing the untested intermediate > release at all ? I'm sure people can just grab u-boot/master or -rc2 > just fine. Because (I contend) these releases do actually attract testing effort and are stable in most cases. I think this is the 90/10 rule - we are adding a road-block in the project for the 10% of boards that are super, super important...so important that no one can actually find time to test them :-) Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
