Requests Patches to be Applied to 4.10
joel at rtems.org
Thu Feb 11 19:52:38 UTC 2021
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:47 PM Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:30 PM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
> > Hi
> > Phillip Smith pinged me at the FSW via Slack about this set of patches
> he proposed be added to the 4.10 branch.
> > https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-April/025610.html
> > I assume this matches what their project requires. Given that 4.10 is
> the last unirprocessor version and we appear to be recommending 5 over
> 4.11, I suggest we consider applying the patches and discuss the
> possibility of another release. 
> > I've previously suggested treating 4.10 as a long-term version since it
> is the last uniprocessor version and a good baseline for behavior,
> performance, and size.
> I've agreed with that view, and in fact we do have several (20+?)
> patches that have been pushed on top of 4.10.2 (including some that
> broke internal APIs such as my PIP improvements). So, these patches
> can be considered for sure for a 4.10.3 cut. But we need to marshal
> time and resources to make it happen. I'm willing to contribute as I
> am able to do so.
I'm thinking initially just evaluate the patches Phillip's project used and
if they backport cleanly. If they don't, perhaps just file a ticket. If
low hanging, just push them. And run tests on say leon3 and psim.
> >  Yes I know release cutting is thankless unpaid work. First step is
> just applying patches.
> If I remember the discussion right, we came to the conclusion that
> maintaining 4.10 would require more resources than we have available
> to commit. I would suggest we identify what the costs may be
> (hardware, labor) for a long-term stable 4.10 version, and target some
> fundraising toward users that would benefit from it. I guess there may
> be at least some space and EPICS users that might be interested.
Cutting a release does involve thankless work and fixing a patch which
doesn't backport very cleanly is also engineering.
I'm not disagreeing particularly on any point. We have finite resources
and funding core developers is the way to make something a priority.
I can definitively state that a user's sponsorship of a code developer
got the 5 series over the hump and 5.1 out the door. It was greatly
> > Thoughts?
> > --joel
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list
> > devel at rtems.org
> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel