Hi,
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 16:10, Andreas Färber afaerber@suse.de wrote:
Hi Simon,
Am 22.06.19 um 16:55 schrieb Simon Glass:
I'd like to better understand the benefits of the 3-month timeline.
It takes time to learn about a release, package and build it, test it on various hardware, investigate and report errors, wait for feedback and fixes, rinse and repeat with the next -rc. Many people don't do this as their main job.
If we shorten the release cycle, newer boards will get out faster (which is good) but the overall quality of boards not actively worked on (because they were working good enough before) will decay, which is bad. The only way to counteract that would be to automatically test on real hardware rather than just building, and doing that for all these masses of boards seems unrealistic.
Here I think you are talking about distributions. But why not just take every second release?
I have certain had the experience of getting a board our of the cupboard and finding that the latest U-Boot doesn't work, nor the one before, nor the three before that.
Are we actually seeing an improvement in regressions? I feel that testing is the only way to get that.
Perhaps we should select a small subset of boards which do get tested, and actually have custodians build/test on those for every rc?
Regards, Simon