On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Rempel, Cynthia <cynt6...@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > I agree we should get the release process going... > I propose the release criteria include: > 1. All tests compile and link for all BSPs > 2. The hello, world and ticker demo run for all simulated BSPs that support > the rtems kernel > 3. We have some sort of linking and running criteria for rtems toolchains > without rtems kernels, or we don't have rtems toolchains for rtems kernels Can you explain this #3? I don't quite get it.
> 4. All features documented in the release notes are tested (where feasible) > on simulated BSPs, and compile / link for non-simulated BSPs > 5. All features that ran on rtems version 4.10.2 either also run on the next > release of rtems, or the feature's removal is documented in the release notes. > 6. (Process) we have a build-bot script running that checks (and rejects) > each rtems patch for compile / link errors (that checks every BSP) > 7. (Process) we have a script that builds and tests the trunk of binutils, > gcc, newlib, gdb which in turn builds all the rtems tests (referenced against > the rtems trunk revision as of the time of the gcc release) and posts the > results to gcc-testresults (as binutils, newlib, and gdb don't have a test > results email). These #6 and 7 will have to wait, but they are not specificaly release-related. At the least, 6 won't be feasible until after we release 4.11. > 8. I also would like to see included in the release documented recommended > configurations for binutils, gcc, newlib, gdb, and the rtems kernel (for each > supported host and each supported target). > When you say configurations, do you refer to how the packages are built? E.g. for autotools packages, the command line options to "configure"? > I suspect tackling 6+7 first will reduce BSP breakage in the future, and help > with 1-5... > > Thanks, > Cindy > ________________________________________ > From: rtems-devel-boun...@rtems.org [rtems-devel-boun...@rtems.org] on behalf > of Gedare Bloom [ged...@rtems.org] > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:22 AM > To: RTEMS Devel > Subject: Release? > > Hi, > > I propose we get the next RTEMS release going. Anyone has objections? > This release process will be re-defining the release processes for the > future also, since there have been some changes made from both > technical and management view points. > > -Gedare > _______________________________________________ > rtems-devel mailing list > rtems-devel@rtems.org > http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel > > _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
