Hi, wouldn't you like to create a milestone for next version as well? We could then assign issues that should be fixed/completed and included in 10.0, leaving out those that should be left for next versions. I'm not quite sure what the GH project offers but it seems it is not necessarily used for issues/PRs, more like for TODOs (that can eventually become issues/PRs). The milestone can also be set to a target date, which can help track time left and evaluate what to leave in and out.
Best, Matias On Fri, Aug 14, 2020, at 15:25, Brennan Ashton wrote: > Thanks for bringing this up Greg, I was also starting to think it was > about time to plan a release. > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:55 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > We finally released 9.1.0 on 2020-07-22. I think the target date for > > that one was 2020-07-01, wasn't it. The next release should then be > > sometime next month, right? 2020-09-01? Or 2020-09-22? > I feel like there are still a lot of changes in flight and I would > like to see more testing on hardware in this release and knowing how > long it takes to actually get a release out with the Apache process I > would be more in favor of trying to target and of Sept with the > possibility to bring it in a bit if things seem stable or voting goes > faster. I am expecting to have a lot more time for a month or so > starting in a week, so happy to push that effort forward, including > testing now that I have a better array of boards including non ARM. > > > > > I don't know what the policy of the NuttX Incubator is, but prior to > > Apache, I used the major revision number to indicate incompatibilities. > > When the major revision number changed, the code was considered > > incompatible with revision with the previous major revision number. > > That was not the case with 9.0; 9.0 was not incompatible with 8.2. In > > that case, the major revision change only signified the first Apache > > release. > > > > A couple of recent PRs have made the NuttX internal time APIs > > incompatible with the timing APIs of all preceding versions. Those > > change are in PR #1565 and PR #1545. All proprietary device drivers of > > NuttX users will be broken in the next release. So the question would > > be, should be bump the next version 10.0? Or should we release an > > incompatible 9.2? > These changes are quite minor (but yes effects a lot of platforms), so > my gut says lets just do 9.2, but I would not vote against a major > version bump if people feel inclined. We have had breaking build > system changes on minor releases in the past. > > > > > Also, we need to document what it is that NuttX users will need to do be > > fix their broken drivers. I can offer to do this. Where would such > > instructions go. Obviously, eventually in the ReleaseNotes. But where > > I put such information now? > > Nathan started this here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/NuttX+9.2 > > I would say let's fill that out, we can change it to 10.0 later. I > will kick off getting the tracking board and the PR changes going in > next week, that I thought worked quite well for realtime and async > collaboration last time. > > --Brennan >
