Re: RFC: Should we have a 2.30.1 point release ?

[Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems dot org>]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 11:40 AM Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> > What would be the purpose of the release?
>
>   Several:
>
>    * Moving the binutils an inch closer to the "release early,
>      release often" principle used by many other free software
>      projects.
>

For RTEMS, I liked it when we were trying to make a point release every N
patches, something serious, or on a period. Whichever came first. Of course
that assumes you have patches. If your software is perfect, then you don't
need point releases. :)

>
>    * Providing an even better binutils release to be matched
>      with the forthcoming gcc v8 release.
>
>    * Get in more practice at making releases. (Especially if I
>      can persuade someone else to have a go at making this
>      release).
>

This is an overlooked but good reason to make releases. The people get
Rusty and the scripts bitrot if not used.

>
>    * Making life easier for distro maintainers who have to patch
>      official releases with bug-fixes that are already on the 2.30
>      branch.
>

I don't think RTEMS is carrying a lot of patches for 2.30 but this is a
very good reason to cur point releases. When we do have issues in binutils,
gcc, newlib, etc., We try to get the patches onto release branches and use
the latest point release. Our goal is to not carry patches.


> Not that I am advocating that we have a 2.30.1 release.  I am happy
> either way. I just wanted to get a feel from the readers on this list
> as to whether they thought that it was a good idea, or just a waste of
>

Someone has to decide what the minimum threshold is to trigger a point
release. Make rules and just follow them. Whatever they are.

Disclaimer: It is easier to give advice than flow it. :)

>
--joel

> time.
>
> Cheers
>   Nick
>