Release?

[Gedare Bloom]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Rempel, Cynthia
<cynt6007 at 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-bounces at rtems.org [rtems-devel-bounces at rtems.org] on behalf of Gedare Bloom [gedare at 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 at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
>
>