[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot Developer's Information

[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot Developer's Information

[Wolfgang Denk]

Hello everybody.

the  number  of  contributions  to  the  U-Boot  project   has   been
continuously  growing,  and  for some time I've been looking for more
efficient ways to deal with all  the  patches  and  submissions.  The
current   development   cycle   with  a  central  CVS  repository  at
SourceForge has a couple of problems:

* SF is slow, and it takes sometimes pretty long until check-ins  are
  visible  to  the public. If the CVS server at SF is down, the whole
  U-Boot development stalls.

* CVS is cumbersome to use when it comes to handling branches. So far
  we avoided branches in U-Boot  completely,  with  the  result  that
  several  interesting  contributions were blocked for a long time to
  avoid de-stabilization of the only branch we had -  often  so  long
  until  the patches were not applicable any more. Many other patches
  and contributions got delayed because of this for a long time, too.

* Every new commit to the only  branch  needed  at  least  a  certain
  amount of testing, so preparing the tree for a "release" was always
  pretty  challenging. This resulted in long delays between releases,
  which in turn caused many people to use old code as  base  for  new
  work which called for trouble later.

U-Boot Version 1.1.3, which was released on August 14, 2005, was the
last release following this old development cycle.


Big changes are coming.


U-Boot Source Repository:
=========================

Starting immediately, we use git (see http://git.or.cz/) as  software
configuration management (SCM) tool for U-Boot development.

Please see http://source.denx.net/en/Documents/GitDocs for  some
introductory  information  for  git.


The "master repository" for U-Boot is available from

	rsync://source.denx.net/git/u-boot.git
or       http://source.denx.net/git/u-boot.git

The CVS repository at SourceForge will be kept in sync with  the  git
tree,  but there is no guarantee how long I will do this, so it's use
is deprecated. Use git, or feel free to use one of  the  'porcelains'
like cogito on top of git.

[FYI: SourceForge considers it "not an immediate priority" to host
and support git based repositories.]


Submitting Patches:
===================

[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot Developer's Information

[glikely at gmail.com]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:15:16AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Starting immediately, we use git (see http://git.or.cz/) as  software
> configuration management (SCM) tool for U-Boot development.
Hooray!

> Releases where "sublevel"  is  zero  will  be  called  "stable".  The
> previous  release  was  1.1.3, and we're working on 1.1.4 now, so the
> next "stable" release might be called "1.2.0".
Is there any intent to handle 'bugfix' releases off of stable?  If so,
what will the numbering scheme be?

Cheers,
g.

[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot Developer's Information

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <20050816033546.GA18033@siegfried.thelikelysolution.ca> you wrote:
>
> > Starting immediately, we use git (see http://git.or.cz/) as  software
> > configuration management (SCM) tool for U-Boot development.
> Hooray!

:-)

> Is there any intent to handle 'bugfix' releases off of stable?  If so,
> what will the numbering scheme be?

I didn't think of this yet. If really needed  we  could  follow  once
more  the  Linux scheme und use something like version.patchlevel.0.N
or so... I'm open for suggestions.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Administration: An ingenious abstraction  in  politics,  designed  to
receive the kicks and cuffs due to the premier or president.
- Ambrose Bierce

[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot Developer's Information

[Richard Danter]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Hello everybody.
> 
> the  number  of  contributions  to  the  U-Boot  project   has   been
> continuously  growing,  and  for some time I've been looking for more
> efficient ways to deal with all  the  patches  and  submissions.  The
> current   development   cycle   with  a  central  CVS  repository  at
> SourceForge has a couple of problems:
...

How do these changes effect patches already submitted but not yet 
applied? Is there anything we need to do to help speed up the process of 
getting patches in?

Thanks
Rich

[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot Developer's Information

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Rich,

in message <4301A8BB.3000309@ntlworld.com> you wrote:
> 
> How do these changes effect patches already submitted but not yet 
> applied? Is there anything we need to do to help speed up the process of 
> getting patches in?

This does not affect patches  already  in  my  queue.  You  may  have
noticed that I already started again to process these.

If you want to help, then yes, you can: if you resubmit  the  patches
against current code (i. e. if you help resolving any merge conflicts
that may have grown over time) then this will definitely speed up the
inclusion of your patches.

If you don't it will just take a bit  longer,  but  nothing  will  be
lost. At least not intentionally.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Pain is a thing of the mind.  The mind can be controlled.
	-- Spock, "Operation -- Annihilate!" stardate 3287.2

[U-Boot-Users] Re: U-Boot Developer's Information

[Catalin Marinas]

Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> Starting immediately, we use git (see http://git.or.cz/) as  software
> configuration management (SCM) tool for U-Boot development.

Good decision :-)

> Please see http://source.denx.net/en/Documents/GitDocs for  some
> introductory  information  for  git.
>
>
> The "master repository" for U-Boot is available from
>
> 	rsync://source.denx.net/git/u-boot.git
> or       http://source.denx.net/git/u-boot.git

Any plans to add a gitweb interface?

> The CVS repository at SourceForge will be kept in sync with  the  git
> tree,  but there is no guarantee how long I will do this, so it's use
> is deprecated. Use git, or feel free to use one of  the  'porcelains'
> like cogito on top of git.

Contributors who are used to Quilt could also use StGIT as one of the
porcelains ('stg clone http://source.denx.net/git/u-boot.git u-boot').
It might simplify the patches maintenance/submission ('mail' command
available as well).

-- 
Catalin

[U-Boot-Users] Re: U-Boot Developer's Information

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <tnx3bpamca6.fsf@arm.com> you wrote:
> 
> Any plans to add a gitweb interface?

Up and running. See http://source.denx.net/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi

> Contributors who are used to Quilt could also use StGIT as one of the
> porcelains ('stg clone http://source.denx.net/git/u-boot.git u-boot').
> It might simplify the patches maintenance/submission ('mail' command
> available as well).

True. I have to admit that I didn't look into StGIT yet - do you  use
it? Any comments?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
There's another way to survive.  Mutual trust -- and help.
	-- Kirk, "Day of the Dove", stardate unknown

[U-Boot-Users] Re: U-Boot Developer's Information

[Catalin Marinas]

Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> In message <tnx3bpamca6.fsf@arm.com> you wrote:
>> 
>> Any plans to add a gitweb interface?
>
> Up and running. See http://source.denx.net/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi

Great, thanks.

>> Contributors who are used to Quilt could also use StGIT as one of the
>> porcelains ('stg clone http://source.denx.net/git/u-boot.git u-boot').
>> It might simplify the patches maintenance/submission ('mail' command
>> available as well).
>
> True. I have to admit that I didn't look into StGIT yet - do you  use
> it? Any comments?

I use StGIT for my Linux patches on top of the mainline kernel and I
find it quite useful for keeping my changes in separate logical
commits (which can be updated). I'm probably not the right person to
praise it since I'm the one who wrote/maintains it :-).

Anyway, it is useful mainly for contributors that expect their patches
to be merged upstream. For the maintainer would make sense only on a
development/testing branch where patches are imported and validated
before being pushed to the stable branch.

I will make a new release this weekend with an updated README
describing its usage since the tool evolved and the documentation is a
bit outdated.

Catalin

[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot Developer's Information

[Brian Waite]

On Monday 15 August 2005 8:15 pm, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

>
>     Please note that U-Boot is implemented in C (and to some small
>     parts in Assembler); no C++ is used, so please do not use C++
>     style comments (//) in your code.
>
Only to be contririan, and to get the debate out of the way now instead of on 
a per-patch basis, We shoud remind ourselves that the // was adopted as a 
legal C comment when C99 was ratified. The // style comment can arguably be 
called a C style comment by people who graduated college after me. If you 
really don't like the // comment ( I know I don't) I think a little more 
verbage might be in order explicitly forbidding the // comment on the grounds 
of u-boot being developed under the C89 specification, or just an outright 
don't do it. Otherwise people will argue this on each patch they develop. 
You've seen it on LKML so lets make this a bit more clear.


Thanks 
Brian

[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot Developer's Information

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <200508160831.44688.bwaite@irobot.com> you wrote:
> 
> a per-patch basis, We shoud remind ourselves that the // was adopted as a 
> legal C comment when C99 was ratified. The // style comment can arguably be 

Nevertheless many existing toolchains throw warning messages,  and  I
see no reason to drop support of these older compilers.

> really don't like the // comment ( I know I don't) I think a little more 
> verbage might be in order explicitly forbidding the // comment on the grounds 
> of u-boot being developed under the C89 specification, or just an outright 
> don't do it. Otherwise people will argue this on each patch they develop. 
> You've seen it on LKML so lets make this a bit more clear.

OK, will do so.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
A little suffering is good for the soul.
	-- Kirk, "The Corbomite Maneuver", stardate 1514.0

[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot Developer's Information

[Detlef Vollmann]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> 
> In message <200508160831.44688.bwaite@irobot.com> you wrote:
> >
> > a per-patch basis, We shoud remind ourselves that the // was adopted as a
> > legal C comment when C99 was ratified. The // style comment can arguably be
> 
> Nevertheless many existing toolchains throw warning messages,  and  I
> see no reason to drop support of these older compilers.
My experience is just the other way around:  the following
code throws an error for long long, but gives no warnings for //:

#define CFG_CMD_KGDB            0x00000200ULL   // kgdb    

#if (CFG_CMD_KGDB) 
#define LONG_LONG_WORKS 1
#endif

Compiled with gcc version 2.95.2, and 'gcc -Wall -pedantic'

As this is an excerpt from u-boot, I'm a bit surprised about
your reasoning against '//'.
It might be pretty hard to find a toolchain that compiles
u-boot but throws a warning on '//'.

 Detlef

-- 
Detlef Vollmann   vollmann engineering gmbh
Linux and C++ for Embedded Systems    http://www.vollmann.ch/
Linux for PXA270 Colibri module: www.toradex.com/e/products.html