Rick Altherr wrote:
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-trivial
effort required on the developers side to get things working.
That depends a bit on the feature set that is required for a 1.0
release. If we select platforms that are completely supported (say, ARM7
and XScale?), and get the configuration management to a state where the
user only needs to tweak a supplied config file a bit for his board, I
think 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 we
draw the line of what needs to be stable for a release.
However, having a stable config file syntax that does not change shortly
after 1.0 would be good for users.
I'd say that 0.9 is as finished as a hardware debugger will ever be if
it 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
I wanted to say that keeping OpenOCD in the 0.x space seems like a bad
idea. There's no point in such a system because the x just becomes the
version number for the product, so you may want to consider going to
version x. I've always thought the kernel was strange for locking at
2.6.x and I found Java even stranger for staying at 1.0.x. I have no
experience with version numbers, but I thought I would throw in my two
cents.
// Dean
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
