Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 19:31 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> full of energy after this tremendous first XUM,
> 
> Agreed, thanks to the DENX folks for having thought of it in the first
> place, and organized it nicely.
> 
>>  I would like to start a
>> discussion about what people would like to see in the 2.5 branch.
>>
> 
> Jan has described the situation quite accurately already, regarding the
> trade-off between getting everything we want into 2.5 so that no 2.6 is
> required, and releasing the too long-awaited 2.5 asap.
> 
> As you mentioned already, the key issue is ABI stability.
> Any change we want before 3.0 that breaks the ABI should preferably go
> to 2.5, so that we don't end up maintaining 2.5.x, 2.6.x and 3.x. At any
> rate, we could not afford the latter anyway. This is a different matter
> than API issues; we already allowed API extensions during a stable
> cycle, provided they do not break existing application code (except in
> emergency cases), so I see no problem in pushing a few more services to
> 2.5.1 and beyond, provided that condition is met.
> 
>> Here is a first list, please feel free to criticize it:
>> - signals in primary domain (something that we almost forgot)
> 
> Yes, this one must be in. At least, we should break the ABI one more
> time for this before releasing 2.5.0. This item has priority #1 for
> me, since providing that infrastructure will enable a series of
> additional services to be implemented properly. In fact, this is more a
> matter of allowing nucleus callouts to user-space than anything else;
> POSIX RT signals in full primary mode being an application of them.

Ok. So, if we add the core skin fdtable, this leaves us with two items:
- signals in primary domain
- core skin fdtable

-- 
                                            Gilles.

_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to