Re: Deprecating eCos 2.0

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org>]

Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
> We always seem to run into these problems a while after a release.

Well, we've only had one non-Red Hat release ;).

> We
> should think forward for the next release. Do we really want to make a
> release with a different version number in the tree?

I think so yes. Normally it's reasonable to assume that if people 
reporting problems have packages with v2_0 in the name, it's a giveaway 
that it's old; and if it's "current", then not only is it from cvs, but it 
is likely to be recent CVS (even the snapshots via FTP are updated weekly 
so people can easily keep up-to-date). If we ship out stuff with "current" 
in the package name, there will be a marked increase in people with paths 
saying "current" when actually it's out of date. We want to catch when 
people are using old sources, and it's not hard to achieve.

> Wouldn't it be
> better to just make a snapshot of CVS, with the CVS directories, so
> that people can do a cvs up. Also change the documentation to
> encourage people to do this as the last part of the installation
> process.

It's a dubious enough suggestion as it is to be making a release that 
isn't stabilised (although at least we can fix up any real showstoppers). 
Positively encouraging use of sources that can be infrequently but 
occasionally seriously broken, seems even less wise.

Jifl
-- 
------["The best things in life aren't things."]------      Opinions==mine