[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[Jean Delvare]

Hi all,

I fear we'll have to release 2.10.3 earlier than originally planed. The
sooner would be the better, in fact. Due to new i2c-core cleanups,
libsensors needs again to be updated to anticipate the kernel changes
and give our users (and distributions) a chance to upgrade user-space
before upgrading their kernel, so they won't break "sensors" and other
tools.

There is no bugfix pending as far as I know. If anyone thinks something
in particular needs to be committed before we release 2.10.3, please
speak up.

Release schedule could look like:
* March 11th: SVN freeze
* March 12th-18th: testing
* March 19th: release

As there was no changes made to the i2c repository since 2.10.2, this
will be a lm_sensors-release only (not that it makes much difference
anyway).

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare

[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Hans,

Please keep the list in copy...

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:24:25 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > I fear we'll have to release 2.10.3 earlier than originally planed. The
> > sooner would be the better, in fact. Due to new i2c-core cleanups,
> > libsensors needs again to be updated to anticipate the kernel changes
> > and give our users (and distributions) a chance to upgrade user-space
> > before upgrading their kernel, so they won't break "sensors" and other
> > tools.
> > 
> > There is no bugfix pending as far as I know. If anyone thinks something
> > in particular needs to be committed before we release 2.10.3, please
> > speak up.
> > 
> > Release schedule could look like:
> > * March 11th: SVN freeze
> > * March 12th-18th: testing
> > * March 19th: release
> > 
> > As there was no changes made to the i2c repository since 2.10.2, this
> > will be a lm_sensors-release only (not that it makes much difference
> > anyway).
> 
> What about the:
> -dynamic sysfs chip support
> -get_sensor_type addition
> -generic print suppoty in sensors the program
> 
> A previous group of my students has been worming on, any chance some of 
> those could make it, or maybe that we can start looking at them after 
> the 19th?

I discussed this with Mark M. Hoffman and we agreed that this was
lm-sensors 3.0 material. Mark is more or less in charge of the
lm-sensors 3.0 tree, while I'm taking care of the current "stable"
branch (2.10.x)

> Either way I'll give those students a kick telling them to get moving on 
> getting their work presented here and integrated.

I agree that we are not very fair with your students which apprently
made a good job which we fail unfortunately failed to integrate
quickly. But well I can't work on everything at once, sorry. If you
want write access to the SVN repository to do it yourself, fine with
me, just ask.

-- 
Jean Delvare

[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[Hans de Goede]

Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Hans,
> 
> Please keep the list in copy...
> 

sorry, I'm still not used to the lm-sensors list default reply settings.

>> What about the:
>> -dynamic sysfs chip support
>> -get_sensor_type addition
>> -generic print suppoty in sensors the program
>>
>> A previous group of my students has been worming on, any chance some of 
>> those could make it, or maybe that we can start looking at them after 
>> the 19th?
> 
> I discussed this with Mark M. Hoffman and we agreed that this was
> lm-sensors 3.0 material. Mark is more or less in charge of the
> lm-sensors 3.0 tree, while I'm taking care of the current "stable"
> branch (2.10.x)
> 

Hmm, that doesn't make me happy, I told my students to not do any API 
changes, as the idea was to get this into 2.x somewhere, as I don't see 
3.0 happening anytime soon. Note that the all the patches only come into 
play when libsensors / sensors doesn't know howto handle a chip, so for 
existing cases nothing changes. (although I plan to remove abituguru 
support from 2.10 when my students code has proven to handle that well, 
and the same could be done for other 2.6 only chips).

Any chance you and Mark could reconcider, and this time do the 
discussion on the list so I get a chance to influence it?

Regards,

Hans

[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[Mark M. Hoffman]

Hi Hans, Jean:

* Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> [2007-03-04 12:15:51 +0100]:
> >> What about the:
> >> -dynamic sysfs chip support
> >> -get_sensor_type addition
> >> -generic print suppoty in sensors the program
> >>
> >> A previous group of my students has been worming on, any chance some of 
> >> those could make it, or maybe that we can start looking at them after 
> >> the 19th?

> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > I discussed this with Mark M. Hoffman and we agreed that this was
> > lm-sensors 3.0 material. Mark is more or less in charge of the
> > lm-sensors 3.0 tree, while I'm taking care of the current "stable"
> > branch (2.10.x)

That said, I don't "own" the 3.0 branch.  Jean and I have offered commit access
to you and your students for exactly the reason that our time is limited.  I
have Bob's patches queued up, it's just that I lack the time right now.

> Hmm, that doesn't make me happy, I told my students to not do any API 
> changes, as the idea was to get this into 2.x somewhere, as I don't see 
> 3.0 happening anytime soon. Note that the all the patches only come into 

3.0 was meant to happen following 2.10.3, or .4 at the latest.  July 2007.  I
have not had spare cycles to spend on it yet this whole year, but I expect the
pressures of my job to ease up by the end of this month.  

> play when libsensors / sensors doesn't know howto handle a chip, so for 
> existing cases nothing changes. (although I plan to remove abituguru 
> support from 2.10 when my students code has proven to handle that well, 
> and the same could be done for other 2.6 only chips).
> 
> Any chance you and Mark could reconcider, and this time do the 
> discussion on the list so I get a chance to influence it?

Yes, we should probably send summaries of our occasional IRC discussions to
the list.  On the other hand, if you look at the trak site, you will see the
3.0 milestone and everything I would like to do for it.

Do you think that July is too long to wait?  If so, what do you propose?

Regards,

-- 
Mark M. Hoffman
mhoffman at lightlink.com

[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[Hans de Goede]

Mark M. Hoffman wrote:
> Hi Hans, Jean:
> 
> * Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> [2007-03-04 12:15:51 +0100]:
>>>> What about the:
>>>> -dynamic sysfs chip support
>>>> -get_sensor_type addition
>>>> -generic print suppoty in sensors the program
>>>>
>>>> A previous group of my students has been worming on, any chance some of 
>>>> those could make it, or maybe that we can start looking at them after 
>>>> the 19th?
> 
>> Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> I discussed this with Mark M. Hoffman and we agreed that this was
>>> lm-sensors 3.0 material. Mark is more or less in charge of the
>>> lm-sensors 3.0 tree, while I'm taking care of the current "stable"
>>> branch (2.10.x)
> 
> That said, I don't "own" the 3.0 branch.  Jean and I have offered commit access
> to you and your students for exactly the reason that our time is limited.  I
> have Bob's patches queued up, it's just that I lack the time right now.
> 
>> Hmm, that doesn't make me happy, I told my students to not do any API 
>> changes, as the idea was to get this into 2.x somewhere, as I don't see 
>> 3.0 happening anytime soon. Note that the all the patches only come into 
> 
> 3.0 was meant to happen following 2.10.3, or .4 at the latest.  July 2007.  I
> have not had spare cycles to spend on it yet this whole year, but I expect the
> pressures of my job to ease up by the end of this month.  
> 
>> play when libsensors / sensors doesn't know howto handle a chip, so for 
>> existing cases nothing changes. (although I plan to remove abituguru 
>> support from 2.10 when my students code has proven to handle that well, 
>> and the same could be done for other 2.6 only chips).
>>
>> Any chance you and Mark could reconcider, and this time do the 
>> discussion on the list so I get a chance to influence it?
> 
> Yes, we should probably send summaries of our occasional IRC discussions to
> the list.  On the other hand, if you look at the trak site, you will see the
> 3.0 milestone and everything I would like to do for it.
> 
> Do you think that July is too long to wait?  If so, what do you propose?
> 

I didn't know 3.0 was that close I thought that 3.0 was eons away, in 
that case integrating them into 3.0 seems like an ok plan. Will the 3.0 
libsensors be ABI compatible with 2.x ?

Also some of the libsensors 3.0 plans seem a bit of a huge undertaking 
for such a short time frame, taking into account how understaffed the 
project is.

In my view it would be best to stay with 2.x releases, or atleast ABI 
compatible releases and add the following:
1) dynamicly support new chips who use the standardized 2.6 sysfs
    interface
2) add a get_feature_type function
3) add generic printing routine to sensors for use with chips supported
    only through 1)
4) add an include statement to sensors.conf (might be handy for 5)
5) use DMI for sensors autodetect and autoconfig



I want 1-3 because most distro's update kernels way more often then 
libsensors and this way we can get support for new chips out there soon, 
also this will allow us to focus on writing drivers for new hardware 
without the (boring, repetitive) work of updating libsensors and sensors 
for each new driver.

I want 5 to make lm-sensors plug and play/ autodetected without any user 
configuration.

About svn commit access, I don not know the code all that well, none the 
less if its easier for you to let me commit stuff I think is good and 
then review the commits instead of reviewing patches I send to the list 
and having to apply them manually, then I have no problem with commmit 
access.

Regards,

Hans

[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[Jean Delvare]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 17:13:27 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> I fear we'll have to release 2.10.3 earlier than originally planed. The
> sooner would be the better, in fact. Due to new i2c-core cleanups,
> libsensors needs again to be updated to anticipate the kernel changes
> and give our users (and distributions) a chance to upgrade user-space
> before upgrading their kernel, so they won't break "sensors" and other
> tools.
> 
> There is no bugfix pending as far as I know. If anyone thinks something
> in particular needs to be committed before we release 2.10.3, please
> speak up.
> 
> Release schedule could look like:
> * March 11th: SVN freeze
> * March 12th-18th: testing
> * March 19th: release

We're in the testing phase now, so everyone please test the current SVN
repository and make sure to report any bug you see.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare

[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[Jean Delvare]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:56:54 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 17:13:27 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > I fear we'll have to release 2.10.3 earlier than originally planed. The
> > sooner would be the better, in fact. Due to new i2c-core cleanups,
> > libsensors needs again to be updated to anticipate the kernel changes
> > and give our users (and distributions) a chance to upgrade user-space
> > before upgrading their kernel, so they won't break "sensors" and other
> > tools.
> > 
> > There is no bugfix pending as far as I know. If anyone thinks something
> > in particular needs to be committed before we release 2.10.3, please
> > speak up.
> > 
> > Release schedule could look like:
> > * March 11th: SVN freeze
> > * March 12th-18th: testing
> > * March 19th: release
> 
> We're in the testing phase now, so everyone please test the current SVN
> repository and make sure to report any bug you see.

I'm done with testing and things look OK. I think we are ready to
release.

Phil, please proceed with the release of lm-sensors 2.10.3 as your time
permits. Notes:
* libsensors version needs to be bumped.
* Do no release i2c, there are no changes there since 2.10.2.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare

[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[Philip Edelbrock]

On Mar 19, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:56:54 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 17:13:27 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> I fear we'll have to release 2.10.3 earlier than originally  
>>> planed. The
>>> sooner would be the better, in fact. Due to new i2c-core cleanups,
>>> libsensors needs again to be updated to anticipate the kernel  
>>> changes
>>> and give our users (and distributions) a chance to upgrade user- 
>>> space
>>> before upgrading their kernel, so they won't break "sensors" and  
>>> other
>>> tools.
>>>
>>> There is no bugfix pending as far as I know. If anyone thinks  
>>> something
>>> in particular needs to be committed before we release 2.10.3, please
>>> speak up.
>>>
>>> Release schedule could look like:
>>> * March 11th: SVN freeze
>>> * March 12th-18th: testing
>>> * March 19th: release
>>
>> We're in the testing phase now, so everyone please test the  
>> current SVN
>> repository and make sure to report any bug you see.
>
> I'm done with testing and things look OK. I think we are ready to
> release.
>
> Phil, please proceed with the release of lm-sensors 2.10.3 as your  
> time
> permits. Notes:
> * libsensors version needs to be bumped.
> * Do no release i2c, there are no changes there since 2.10.2.

OK, sounds good.  I assume the libsensors bump is the minor and not  
major #.  I hope to get this done by the end of my day today.


Phil

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2439 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20070319/26391151/attachment.bin 

[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[Jean Delvare]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:12:11 -0700, Philip Edelbrock wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Phil, please proceed with the release of lm-sensors 2.10.3 as your  
> > time
> > permits. Notes:
> > * libsensors version needs to be bumped.
> > * Do no release i2c, there are no changes there since 2.10.2.
> 
> OK, sounds good.  I assume the libsensors bump is the minor and not  
> major #.  I hope to get this done by the end of my day today.

Yes, minor # (last digit thereof, even).

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare

[lm-sensors] Call for 2.10.3

[Jean Delvare]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:46:10 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:12:11 -0700, Philip Edelbrock wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Phil, please proceed with the release of lm-sensors 2.10.3 as your  
> > > time permits. Notes:
> > > * libsensors version needs to be bumped.
> > > * Do no release i2c, there are no changes there since 2.10.2.
> > 
> > OK, sounds good.  I assume the libsensors bump is the minor and not  
> > major #.  I hope to get this done by the end of my day today.
> 
> Yes, minor # (last digit thereof, even).

OK, lm-sensors 2.10.3 has been released now. Thanks to Axel for his
support :)

I'll make the freshmeat announcement tomorrow.

-- 
Jean Delvare