On 4/2/14 15:56 , Michał Geszkiewicz wrote: > Hi Seb, Hi Michal,
> Few questions: > > Who made decision about not including ubc and when? As release manager, I did. It was a few days before i made the 2.6 branch announcement. > Where are the emails that invite developers to irc meeting to vote this? There were none - as release manager i made the decision. > Why voting about need to integrate ubc before 2.6 from irc meeting > http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Meeting201306 was ignored? The vote was not ignored. The vote was a general agreement that UB was a desirable feature that we should try to get into 2.6. Several of us worked on that branch (and on our infrastructure) to move it towards a state where we would feel comfortable merging UB for the 2.6 release. This work is ongoing, but it is my (unpopular) opinion that UB is not currently ready for release. I know the exclusion of UB for 2.6 is a disappointment for everyone. It's a big disappointment for me too, as one of the folks who have worked to include it. In retrospect we should have probably branched 2.6 back in July, but i was hopeful back then that we were close to merging UB and i wanted to wait for it... > Why you ignoring mhaberler when he pointed out that all noted ubc issues > was fixed? I didn't reply because i have a history of not having effective communication with Michael Haberler when the conversation is that emotional. I did not know about the commits he's referencing. Saying "the issue is fixed because there's a commit in this other branch over here" is a bit disingenuous. I dont follow all of Michael Haberler's branches. We have a branch that we were trying to get ready to merge, unified-build-candidate-3, that's where bug fixes for that branch belong. If the fixes had been made on the shared branch we were all trying to make release-ready, then i would have known about them, i would have known that the other developers were still making forward progress towards merge readiness, i could have closed the open bug tickets on the bug tracker, and we'd have been closer to merging UB for 2.6. > Why are you ignoring fastest than ever rising group of users with small > budget who want to use linuxcnc with stuff like beagleboard, raspberrypi > with 3d printing?. I'm not ignoring them, on the contrary i've worked for a long time to try to include support for ARM platforms in LinuxCNC. I intend to continue to work towards this goal. I and lots of my friends have Beagle Bones and are looking forward to better support for them in LinuxCNC. What i do not want to do is hold up the 2.6 release any more while this work progresses. 2.6 is not the final release of LinuxCNC (i hope!). > Additionally realtime ethernet is what could make linuxcnc project > competitive with industrial cnc controllers. and it's only possible with > ubc code. I understand, 7i80 support requires realtime ethernet, which requires rt-preempt or xenomai. I'm optimistic that the LinuxCNC developer community will continue to work on adding support for these realtime systems, and that when it's ready we will make another release that includes this support. -- Sebastian Kuzminsky ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
