Releases

[Chris Johns]

On 8/02/11 11:01 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/08/2011 12:37 AM, Claus, Ric wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Is there a planned timeframe for a 4.10 release?
> No, except that there repeatedly had been attempts to prepare a release
> tarballs, so far nothing has happened ...
>
> Joel recently once more had announced an attempt, ... we'll see if it'll
> happen this time ;)
>

I was holding things up with an object extend patch. On review I have 
decided not to apply the patch on 4.10 because it is too deep in the 
supercore even with all tests passing. I apologise for the delay this 
has caused.

There should be a 4.10 release in the coming days.

>>> rtems4.9, though it's still officially labeled "stable", as far as I am
>>> concerned, and though some people will want to kill me for saying so,
>>> actually is de-facto "dead".
>> So there is no plan to actually release 4.9.5?

There has not been enough problems raised against 4.9 to need another 
release.

> Joel would be the person to answer this - I haven't looked into 4.9.x
> for quite a while.

I tend to agree with Ralf that 4.9 is kind of caught as 4.10 gets 
released. We may need to clear this up in the documentation if it is not 
clear. I have not checked. I feel once the branch occurs we have moved 
on from the previous release.

>>> I.e. to the OP, I'd recommend rtems4.11 (comprising gcc-4.5.2,
>>> binutils-2.21). To you, rtems4.10 likely is the preferrable choice.
>> Massively confused by the RTEMS release process...
> Well, actually it's quite simple: We have 2 active branches - a "stable
> version" and a "development/bleeding edge version".
>
> What may confuse you is that we're stuck in the transition phase from
> "stable = 4.9" to "stable = 4.10", for much too long, letting appear
> RTEMS to have 3 active branches, while hardly any works went into 4.9.

I agree with this view. The 4.9 tree may be under the support needed 
label. For new BSP development you should consider 4.11.

Chris