[U-Boot-Custodians] [ANN] U-Boot v2020.01-rc4 released

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 10:20:51AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 10:07, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 06:00:11PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On 12/3/19 5:52 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 20:11, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hey all,
> > > >>
> > > >> It's release day and here is v2020.01-rc4.  Yes, I'm still working on
> > > >> fixing all of the issues that pop up as I get the MTD clean-up series
> > > >> ready to go.  In fact, what I need to do at this point is grab the
> > > >> handful of size reduction patches that this has shown are worthwhile,
> > > >> then I can do the MTD series.  Then we're down to just fixing up
> > > >> misconversions where things got turned off.
> > > >>
> > > >> Once again, for a changelog,
> > > >> git log --merges v2020.01-rc3..v2020.01-rc4
> > > >> and as always, I ask for more details in the PRs people send me so I can
> > > >> put them in the merge commit.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm planning on doing -rc5 on December 23rd with the release scheduled
> > > >> on January 6th.  Thanks all!
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of next year, what is the plan for the release. Is there any
> > > > chance we might move back to a release every two months? The
> > > > three-month process is very slow...
> > >
> > > I am very happy with this 3-month release cycle, it's less stressful and
> > > I think the quality of the releases is higher too.
> >
> > I thought I said this a release or so ago, sorry.  I believe we'll be
> > sticking with the 3-month cycle and I hope to find time to more actively
> > use a -next branch myself to help with some of the delay, or at least
> > slower feedback cycle.
> 
> That would certainly help, but it hasn't proved possible so far. Let's
> see how it goes with the next release.

Well, it's also about custodian stress and time levels.  The longer
cycle seems to be better for that.

> Do you think if we can improve the testing (e.g. with more mini-labs
> attached to gitlab) we might resolve these stability problems?

Ah right, I needed to reply to that thread, sorry.  I get the feeling
that the answer overall is that folks that have spent time with LAVA
need to chime in, or barring that, I need to play with LAVA as that's
how a lot of the "how do you reserve boards" and so forth problems are
handled, and would also make an easier case for vendors to get more
U-Boot testing done (as that gets you to kernelci too, or if you already
have kernelci going, you can add U-Boot with just a few more steps).

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20191203/95f9f4ff/attachment.sig>