Agustin Benito Bethencourt <agustin.benito@...>
I think I mentioned before some of the below arguments when this topic was risen months ago. It is a good time to publish them here.
On 20/06/17 17:18, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 09:12 +0000, Chris Paterson wrote:I would like to keep flexibility here, that is, do not tight ourselves to releases yet for a variety of reasons. These are the main ones I can think of right now:Hello Ben,I expect to release about every month, and whenever there's an urgent
* We are in an LTS phase. Defining a cadence at this point might reinforce the idea that our kernel maintenance process is somehow different than LTS when, except for a few packages, it is not yet. That was intentional.
* I would like to be able to consistently test the kernel, even with a single test, before claiming to make releases, that is, before making a public commitment on any delivery process. The expectations can be higher that we can commit to.
* We do not know at this point what the maintenance cycle is going to be from the kernel community. I am not suggesting that we have to follow it, but before defining our cadence, I would have a clear idea about what upstream will do.
* A kernel release for SLTS has severe implications in other areas, like the testing tools, testing results, tests, etc. We need also to freeze/store/release them, together with the build instructions, metadata, artifacts, source code.... In other words, we need to define what "a release" means for CIP and how much effort requires.
* With the above and the fact that we are starting to put effort in -RT, I wonder if we will talk about releasing the CIP kernel or we will talk about releasing the CIP platform (assuming that at the beginning the kernel is the main bit).
Defining a release today might play against us in a year or two.
Once this said, if Members require at this point a cadence, we will provide one but I think that sticking to LTS cycle until Feb'18 and assuming that we will catch up every 4-8 weeks is the way to go. Once the 4.4 maintainer is published, let's talk to him/her and take decisions.
Is there a specific reason why you need a cadence now beyond what LTS provides? I am trying to understand the details in order to think about a solution for Renesas compatible with the above.
Agustin Benito Bethencourt
Principal Consultant - FOSS at Codethink