On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 12:06 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:openocd- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Zach Welch > > Sent: woensdag 8 juli 2009 0:35 > > To: Øyvind Harboe > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] 0.2.0 release... on hold? > > > > On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 00:14 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > > > > We need to find some balance. Right now, the presses are too heavily > > > > biased toward "development" to the extent that "release" suffers badly. > > > > > > I definitely want to see a reset of the release timeout counter > > > when we discover such problems as we have seen in > > > the last week. > > > > > > The "step" bug alone would have made *all* the regression test > > > scripts fail... I wouldn't even want to ask Michael Fischer to > > > run the regression test suite without that one in place... > > > > Right, so I do want to make it clear that some of these are entirely > > legitimate bugs that you are fixing. No dispute about that. In that > > regard, I am happy to reset the release deadline while we consider the > > patches. However, there does need to be a limit to the number of resets > > that we allow for new issues. > > If I may be very blunt: I don't think we are very close to a 0.2.0 > release. It seems (based on bug reports) the recent changes broke some > of the existing functionality. That needs to be tested & fixed first.
I think that we need to fix the bugs that we have spotted, but each release window has its limits. The 7/1 deadline had been discussed in on the list more than once, and I am fairly certain that I gave ample warning to the community in the past week or so. The late rush and subsequent delays are simultaneously expected and disappointing. > IMHO release 0.2.0 should have at least the same functionality that > 0.1.0 had. This kind of expectation does not hold indefinitely, as not even the Linux kernel maintains support for all platforms indefinitely. I bet every minor release sees a regressions in a small part of the tree. Given that OpenOCD shares the same hardware testing requirements, I think it would be insane to expect that we never have regressions for some platforms. Moreover, some of the reset bugs being discussed appear to have been introduced before the 0.1.0 release. We can't wait for everyone that missed the release window, when others get their work in on time. That is simply not fair to the maintainers that are keeping up with the schedule. This is why the world has deadlines, and there will always be consequences for missing them. Fortunately, we can make new releases in due course, so any mistakes will be corrected with sufficient patience from the community. All of this is for the future. For now, we're playing things by ear, and it sounds like we need to give 0.2.0 a little more time to brew. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
