From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <50CDCF87.2010207@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:41:27 +0100 From: hauptmech MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50CB2610.6010905@gmail.com> <50CBA44C.5090402@xenomai.org> <50CC634B.3020307@xenomai.org> In-Reply-To: <50CC634B.3020307@xenomai.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] How does the adeos and xenomai project stay synchronized with the linux kernel project? List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org I'm coming to the documentation with relatively fresh eyes. If you give me a user on the wiki I'm happy to do a little gardening. Things like the [getting started] page which is useful but not linked to anymore. Perhaps a buffer page between the wiki and the git page with a little description of the repos and how they fit into the development workflow (where a link to denx could go). I have made xenomai source packages for pacman (Archlinux + a few others) for arm last year and just now x86. However since archlinux tends to use a minimally patched vanilla kernel it's not as exciting as debian. More embedded below... On 12/15/2012 12:47 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > On 12/14/2012 11:12 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote: > >> We never updated the Adeos patches for minor linux releases routinely, >> this has never been our policy, and will likely never be the case. This >> would just involve way too much work for our bandwidth. We are focusing >> on major releases. So you seem to be expecting something we never >> delivered in the past anyway. Ok, I wasn't expecting anything. I just didn't understand. >> >> However, the pace of our Adeos updates for major kernel releases has >> slowed down over the past three years, definitely. This said, we have >> support for kernel 3.4 and in some cases 3.5, for the main architecture >> ports we maintain, it's not lagging that far behind. The availability of ipipe for 3.4/3.5 (x86) is not apparent from the website nor the patches in the xenomai source. >> >>> So my question is (with the deepest respect for the effort it must take) >>> why? >>> >> Because we all have to deal with priorities and available resources, >> this is no different for the Xenomai maintainers. > > Speaking for myself here, porting the I-pipe patch (for the ARM > architecture in my case) to new versions of Linux is the most boring > part of the job, and since I do it on my free time, I tend to > procrastinate. Which is why for instance the I-pipe patch for 3.5 has > been available since august, and I did the port to the ARM architecture > only last week-end (shame on me...). Does all the work involve expertise with the kernel? I realize that having a inexpert 'helper' for a lot of tasks just creates extra work but if that's not the case here, perhaps a help-wanted post on the wiki and some documentation on the process would attract someone wanting to learn or help. > > Anyway, I think the real problem for an end user is the frequency of > Xenomai releases, not of the I-pipe patches, because we probably should > have made a release of Xenomai as soon as the patch for 3.4 has been > available on all architectures. But on the other hand, if you look at > the core-3.4 branch in the git repository, you will see that staying > some time on that patch allowed us to fix many issues. I look forward to the release when it does happen. -hauptmech