This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
Indeed a proper release would come later. What's mentioned was an alpha because it was a repository snapshot, that's all. It doesn't have a proper installer for windows, RPM for linux, and hasn't been QA'd per se. But it's no worse than any other repository snapshot.On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 06:36:26AM -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 04:47, Kristin Hofstee wrote:Thanks for the tips. Could you also point me to the most recent stable version or non-alpha version?The current version is only labeled "alpha" for licensing reasons, not because there is a lot of new or untested code. It's your best place to start.
This is still not entirely clear to me.
Some time ago I read on this list that version 2.0 was not yet ready
as a "stable release" (pity I can't find back that message).
http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/install-linux.html and http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/install-windows.html both say at the top:Red Hat side on eCos heavily points towards 1.3.x versions.
On the other hand, newcomers that downloaded version 1.3.x get the typical advice to upgraded to the latest CVS version (the most recent I could see is ecos-v2-alpha-snap-2002-10-14.tar.bz2I could not bear to advise anyone to use 1.3.x, and I personally wouldn't help anyone who was using it.
from http://www.ecoscentric.com/snapshots/).
So, my questions:
(a) what is currently the best version to start off for a "conservative/efficient" development ? (we used 1.3.x in the past and this worked fine, but now, the situation is not entirely clear to me).
Schedule? None now. It's more a case of "X, Y, and Z need to be done first". That includes the patch backlog, website overhaul, and severe rewriting of big chunks of docs. And we've now lost a lot of the release infrastructure that was in place in Red Hat and we'd expected to use and that will need to be recreated. And then there's the QA of the sources, for which we'll now need substantial net input (there's no point starting this effort till the previous bits are done really, otherwise the source base will have moved on).(b) what is the schedule to move 2.0 to beta and stable releases ?
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |