This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: versioned directory paths
- From: Mike Moran <mnmoran at bellsouth dot net>
- To: Andrew Lunn <andrew dot lunn at ascom dot ch>
- Cc: eCos Discuss <ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 13:45:54 -0500
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] versioned directory paths
- Organization: rukidding
- References: <3C7F9EA6.79E2E4B7@bellsouth.net> <20020301170255.A29707@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch>
- Reply-to: mnmoran at bellsouth dot net
Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> Current is used for snapshots which are in CVS.
>
> Numbered versions are used for 'official releases'. These have been
> through lots of testing, more than what happens for CVS releases. eg
> paying customers receive release with numbers, not current.
I assume you mean paying for support.
> As a paying customer i find it useful. For a while i had to support
> two different versions of eCos which had different serial device
> drivers API. I could then use the version number for conditionally
> compiled code. Its also possible to keep different versions of
> packages in the same source tree. I found this useful when developing
> newer versions of a package, but still need the old one around until
> the new one was stable etc.
Understandable. I'm considering integrating CVS snap-shots into
our local revision-control / configuration-managment system. Since
it already handles the versioning issues, it tends to make the
tree bigger, but not necessarily better.
> For CVS, which is how most of you get your sources,its all pritty
> useless. I think the original idea was to have many more 'official
> releases' like 1.3.1 and the up comming 2.0. If this happened say
> every two months and people used them instead of anonCVS, the version
> numbers would be usefull. Since its been 2 years between 1.3.1 and
> 2.0, everyone has been using anonCVS and so the versions have become
> pointless.
Yeah, 2 years is a bit distant between releases. However, at least for
my target, the stability has been good for 1.3.1.
> The documentation does go into some of these details. There are quite
> a few powerful features which are simply not used.
I must have missed that in the docs.
I'm still curious to know how the directory names are changed
during the process of "releasing". Is this a part of the "make install"
equivalent, or is it an internal RedHat process?
> Andrew
>
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 10:30:46AM -0500, Mike Moran wrote:
> > Warning... newbie question.
> >
> > I have been using the eCos version 1.3.1 snapshot/release for some
> > time. I recently got a broadband connection :-) and began using
> > anonymous CVS. However, there are many sub-directory names in the
> > 1.3.1 release with the name "current" rather than "1.3.1".
> >
> > How/when do these names get changed during the release process?
> > What is the intent of this practice?
> > Has this policy changed since the 1.3.1 release?
> >
> > Thanks for the help. I can't seem to find the answers
> > at sources.redhat.com/ecos.
> >
> > mike
> >
--
Michael N. Moran
5009 Old Field Ct.
Kennesaw, GA 30144
(h) 770 516 7918
(c) 678 521 5460
The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss