RTEMS Source Builder | Next (Bleeding Edge) Version Numbers are Annoying (#92)

[Joel Sherrill (@joel)]

Joel Sherrill commented on a discussion: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/tools/rtems-source-builder/-/issues/92#note_119839


We need to be clear. Based on current names:

- 7 - Expected to be stable for work on the development version. But bumps to latest upstream release can break. 

- 8 - Currently git hash based and too fragile to be of use to a broad community

The "7" style naming addresses a problem we had in the past. When we branch, there is not a frantic and fragile effort to fix places that are something else and need to be 7.

We need a way to keep a stable version for active development but make it easy to test the next upstream releases. My proposal is to:

- Keep the "7" style but it is not always the latest upstream releases
- Have what is now "8" be the latest upstream releases
- Drop RSB building of git hash versions or find a way to call it bleeding.

I am not sure we have the resources to test bleeding edge tools. We can revisit that in the future if there is automation and infrastructure.

This works if there is community helping test 8. Otherwise, seeing the impact of 8 on rtems is still a lonely, thankless task with even less pressure to fix the issues.

-- 
View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/tools/rtems-source-builder/-/issues/92#note_119839
You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/bugs/attachments/20250213/0d0a2d23/attachment.htm>