* [Xenomai] core-3.5 vs. core-3.5.7
@ 2013-01-17 11:06 Jan Kiszka
2013-01-17 13:16 ` Philippe Gerum
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2013-01-17 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philippe Gerum; +Cc: Xenomai
Hi Philippe,
what's the purpose of having two 3.5 branches and still committing to both?
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai] core-3.5 vs. core-3.5.7
2013-01-17 11:06 [Xenomai] core-3.5 vs. core-3.5.7 Jan Kiszka
@ 2013-01-17 13:16 ` Philippe Gerum
2013-01-17 14:00 ` Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Gerum @ 2013-01-17 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka; +Cc: Xenomai
On 01/17/2013 12:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> what's the purpose of having two 3.5 branches and still committing to both?
>
I was still in the process of validating powerpc and blackfin against
3.5.7 this morning, and I did not want to delay Gilles in releasing
2.6.2.1 even if based on 3.5.3 for these archs. It turns out that I
completed this validation a couple of hours ago though. So x86*, arm,
powerpc* and bfin will have support for kernel 3.5.7 in the upcoming
2.6.2.1.
--
Philippe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai] core-3.5 vs. core-3.5.7
2013-01-17 13:16 ` Philippe Gerum
@ 2013-01-17 14:00 ` Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
2013-01-17 14:06 ` Philippe Gerum
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda @ 2013-01-17 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xenomai; +Cc: Jan Kiszka
A Dijous 17 Gener 2013, Philippe Gerum va escriure:
> On 01/17/2013 12:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
[....]
> powerpc* and bfin will have support for kernel 3.5.7 in the upcoming
> 2.6.2.1.
2.6.2.1 ?
what's about to have a 2.6.3? IMHO four version numbers is a bit excessive ...
--
--
Linux User 152692
Catalonia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai] core-3.5 vs. core-3.5.7
2013-01-17 14:00 ` Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
@ 2013-01-17 14:06 ` Philippe Gerum
2013-01-17 15:55 ` Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Gerum @ 2013-01-17 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda; +Cc: Jan Kiszka, xenomai
On 01/17/2013 03:00 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> A Dijous 17 Gener 2013, Philippe Gerum va escriure:
>> On 01/17/2013 12:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> [....]
>
>> powerpc* and bfin will have support for kernel 3.5.7 in the upcoming
>> 2.6.2.1.
>
> 2.6.2.1 ?
>
> what's about to have a 2.6.3? IMHO four version numbers is a bit excessive ...
>
It's not about how many numbers you put in the release tag, this is
about what you put in the release. The next release is a fix up for
brown paper bag issues in 2.6.2, not a full fledged upgrade with
significant functional updates.
--
Philippe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai] core-3.5 vs. core-3.5.7
2013-01-17 14:06 ` Philippe Gerum
@ 2013-01-17 15:55 ` Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda @ 2013-01-17 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philippe Gerum; +Cc: Jan Kiszka, xenomai
A Dijous 17 Gener 2013, Philippe Gerum va escriure:
> On 01/17/2013 03:00 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> > A Dijous 17 Gener 2013, Philippe Gerum va escriure:
> >> On 01/17/2013 12:06 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > [....]
> >
> >> powerpc* and bfin will have support for kernel 3.5.7 in the upcoming
> >> 2.6.2.1.
> >
> > 2.6.2.1 ?
> >
> > what's about to have a 2.6.3? IMHO four version numbers is a bit excessive
...
> >
>
> It's not about how many numbers you put in the release tag, this is
> about what you put in the release. The next release is a fix up for
> brown paper bag issues in 2.6.2, not a full fledged upgrade with
> significant functional updates.
I know, but _always_ all of this kind of stuff is relative. I think that
looking on the xenomai audience you don't need a:
> a full fledged upgrade with significant functional updates
to put a 2.6.3. You can say:
we release a new version with all the fixes of 2.6.2
I see looking on [1] the xenomai history some version with 4 numbers. But,
IMHO all this kind of stuff is a convention and it's not necessary to be so
strict with the last number. It's binary compatible, you don't have changed
the ABI ...
Just my 2 ct.
Regards,
Leo
[1] http://www.xenomai.org/index.php/Xenomai:News
--
--
Linux User 152692
Catalonia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-17 15:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-01-17 11:06 [Xenomai] core-3.5 vs. core-3.5.7 Jan Kiszka
2013-01-17 13:16 ` Philippe Gerum
2013-01-17 14:00 ` Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
2013-01-17 14:06 ` Philippe Gerum
2013-01-17 15:55 ` Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.