From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: RFC: New release for DTC? Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:00:13 +0000 Message-ID: <20121118000013.6964A3E08F7@localhost> References: <201208232015.39613.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <20120824013625.GA8067@truffula.fritz.box> <201211171250.08597.vapier@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201211171250.08597.vapier-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Mike Frysinger , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:50:07 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 23 August 2012 21:36:25 David Gibson wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:15:39PM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > > Following advice from Jon Loeliger, I would suggest that a new release > > > of DTC be tagged and packaged. > > > > > > It is important for some projects to rely on a released version, rather > > > than use a random cset from the repository. Comes to mind, the automated > > > build-systems, such as buildroot. > > > > > > Of course, I can help, if need be! ;-) > > > > > > Are there any others who think that a release would make sense? > > > > This has been a bit of a perrenial problem. dtc development has been > > sufficiently gradual that there haven't been many obvious points for > > making new releases. dtc developers (i.e. Jon and my, mostly) don't > > feel much pain from the lack of releases, since the git snapshots > > generally work well (thanks to limited scope and a good testsuite). > > > > I wonder if we should move to a model of just making a release every 3 > > or 6 months from whatever happens to be in the tree at the time > > (barring obvious known breakage, of course). > > yes please. even just a version that uses datestamps would be fine. > -mike Fine by me. g.