On Jan 13, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Michael Schwingen wrote:
Øyvind Harboe wrote:OpenOCD can *NEVER* be "1.0" in that there will always be a non- trivialeffort required on the developers side to get things working.That depends a bit on the feature set that is required for a 1.0release. If we select platforms that are completely supported (say, ARM7 and XScale?), and get the configuration management to a state where theuser only needs to tweak a supplied config file a bit for his board, Ithink this could be called 1.0 - a 1.0 release does not need to support every device in the world. I think it is just a matter of taste where wedraw the line of what needs to be stable for a release.However, having a stable config file syntax that does not change shortlyafter 1.0 would be good for users.I'd say that 0.9 is as finished as a hardware debugger will ever be ifit is to be anything like remotely current w.r.t. hardware out there. So, I vote for 0.7 :-)Fine with me. Now if the development speed stays the same, I do think we should be able to reach something that can be called 1.0 during this year. cu Michael
The difference between 0.1 and 0.7 is entirely in perception. The version numbers are effectively arbitrary since we have never made any other versioned release. If we are going to use 0.x (the two responses I got have both suggested that path), we might as well start with the beginning of the minor version number space (0.1) rather than an arbitrary point in the middle.
-- Rick Altherr [email protected]"He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split it with him."
-- Unsigned
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
