[syslinux] Making a 6.04
Ady
ady-sf at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 14 10:13:54 PDT 2016
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:35:13AM +0300, Ady wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:03:05PM -0400, Gene Cumm wrote:
> > > On May 31, 2016 6:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > > There seem to be a bunch of bug fixes in the 6.04 branch that people
> > > > really need. Do we know of any current regressions? Otherwise we
> > > > really ought to just push the button...
> > > >
> > >
> > > How about the recently introduced weak issue?
> >
> > How about the "HIDDEN" issue? How about updating and testing the
> > gnu-efi submodule? How about the "keeppxe" patch (perhaps solving a bug
> > that has been present since v.5+)?
>
> I think that 'the recently introduced weak issue' and 'the "keeppxe" patch'
> are the same. http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2016-June/025216.html
No, they are not. Bug #71 is not the same as bug #5.
>
>
> > Or how about the feedback I wrote
> > when 6.04-pre1 was released? How about a "gptmbr.bin" that supports
> > XFS? How about the many regressions still present, for so many years?
> > And the pending patches?
> >
> > [sarcasm mode on]
> > Let's have an automatic daily build! Moreover, let's have an automatic
> > daily release! One new official release version every single day. That
> > way, the so many many many users of Syslinux 6+ would get a newer
> > updated version, with a shiny new number, every single day! Yeah, I'm
> > sure that would solve all the problems.
> > [sarcasm mode off]
>
> That is called CI ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration )
> [serious mode continued]
>
>
> > I seriously doubt that there are many people actually requesting for an
> > updated release, except maybe for super-lazy maintainers that don't
> > really care (and I am able to prove this with facts, but I won't waste
> > my own time with something that won't be even read).
> >
> > I wish and hope for actual development. Shiny and, at this point,
> > completely useless numbers, won't change the facts.
>
> The good thing I see in a new version number is "Let's move forward"
They are unrelated in this case. Moreover, the last few times that a
new version was released, the development stalled even more than
before.
My point is that those requesting a new version release now don't seem
to be following the development, nor the existing regressions, nor the
pending-for-review patches.
Not having the gnu-efi submodule updated and tested is enough reason
not to release now; but to know that, people would need to be following
the development. I could provide a lot more reasons.
>
>
> Groeten
> Geert Stappers
At any rate, I expressed my honest opinion, trying to be objective and
realistic.
Regards,
Ady.
More information about the Syslinux
mailing list