Re: [docs] [PATCH] ref-manual: update releases.svg

Antonin Godard
2024-10-22T09:16:44Z

Hi Quentin, Michael,

Thanks for the reviews. Answering here to you both to make it easier. :)

On Fri Oct 18, 2024 at 4:01 PM CEST, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> Hi Antonin
>
> Thank you for the update! I was thinking about it too :)
>
> On 10/18/24 13:53, Quentin Schulz via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>> Hi Antonin,
>>
>> On 10/18/24 1:38 PM, Antonin Godard via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>>> * Add Walnascar release.
>>> * Remove dunfell, gatesgarth, hardknott, honister: these release are not
>>>    supported anymore. Start from kirkstone, which is still supported.
>>>
>>
>> I think we also need to update the paragraph where this appears.
>>
>> Indeed, we're missing the information that Scarthgap is the latest LTS
>> and is supported until 2028 (it's in the SVG though, so maybe that's
>> enough?).

Agreed, I missed this!

>> I would keep the releases that are unmaintained but newer than the
>> last LTS.

This is what I thought also. So since Dunfell is not maintained anymore I
removed it, and the subsequent releases up to Kirkstone since they are also EoL.

>> The issue is that Styhead (and Walnascar) is going to be EoL
>> before Scarthgap, so are we going to update the SVG in Scarthgap when
>> Styhead is EoL? If not, then we'd be inconsistent with what we've done
>> for Kirkstone for example.
>>
>> Just trying to figure out what's the plan here so we can stick to it :)

My thought process was maybe a bit simpler: no matter what the release is, the
SVG should always show the current state of the releases. I was in fact planning
on backporting this to styhead, scarthgap and kirkstone.

And when styhead is EoL, update the diagram again + backport on maintained
branches (and styhead).

I think this is what was done on Kirkstone? It seems to also be up-to-date
compared to master.

>> It'd be nice if you have the SVG published somewhere so we can see it
>> without applying the patch locally, is this something you could do to
>> make reviewing easier?

Sure, I will add a link in my v2, along with the paragraph changes.

> In addition to agreeing with Quentin, I also note that in the previous
> versions of the diagram, the future releases were in lighter gray, as a
> way to distinguish them from past ones. That's not strictly necessary as
> we can see their dates too, though.

Ha, I thought it was a mistake at first! Will revert this.

> You could either change this or decide to color all EOL releases and
> future ones in light gray, which could also make sense.

I think a small legend and a color difference to distinguish between future and
eol could be nice? I've prepared something on my side, will send it in my v2
soon… :)

Cheers,
Antonin

--
Antonin Godard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering