This is one small thing that I don't feel is important, although some may say it is. I think it is not important since I'm sure all my files will work with the latest stable compiler, whatever that may be.
Maybe I should change my files to: -- Compiler: JalV2 In the future, it could be: -- Compiler: Jalv2 & JAT Matt. On Dec 24, 5:51 am, Joep Suijs <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > We've discussed this a long time ago and iirc, at the time we intended > to test all files for each release. > Our method for the last two years has been different: buildbot is very > helpfull to check basic consistency and this with our tests with new > compilers has proven this is sufficient to provide a relaiable library > pack. > > If we automaticly increment the compiler version, we suggest it has > been tested and in many cases it is not (beyond the buildbot one, that > is). > So if we feel that the buildbot test is good enough, then I'd say > okay. Even if this means we will have changed version of files that > have been stable for months or years now... > > As an alternative, we could remove the compiler version note. We > deliver a package, with compiler, device files and (sometimes related) > libraries. One should use the package as a whole or be prepared to > handle all kind of compatibilty issues. From this point of view, the > version number of the release could be added to each file. > > However, I don't think there are many version issues that are resolved > by the compiler version notice in the file (although there are a few > that could have been resolved if people acutally read and understood > it). > So my first option would be to substitute the compiler version number > with a generic message. > > Joep > > 2010/12/24 Rob Hamerling <[email protected]>: > > > > > Hi Matt, guys, > > > I noticed that Matt's latest library references compiler version >=2.4l, but > > I doubt it has been tested with 2.4l, I'm pretty sure Matt and everyone else > > here uses 2.4n (or even 2.4o-beta). > > This is just an example, there are many more libraries and samples which > > reference older compiler versions. > > I think it would be better when all libraries and samples would reference > > the latest compiler version, certainly for a download package. But this > > requires (preferrably!) a batch process to change the many files! Comments? > > > Regards, Rob. > > > -- > > R. Hamerling, Netherlands ---http://www.robh.nl > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "jallib" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
