Chris Johns commented: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/tools/rtems-source-builder/-/issues/92#note_120007 !127 discusses the change from the release buildsets to a common named directory of configuration files. I stated on discord my objection: > **opticron:** even if we deprecate it over 2 major versions and provide stubs > with warnings (and solutions) in the interim? > > > **kiwichris**: Yes this is my current view. I am not seeing any advantage > > other than a localised name changing. Any wrapping script will know the > > RTEMS version being built already so that will be something like the > > deployment fragment I posted in !127. You will need equivalent git churn on > > release of RTEMS I have been publicly active for a number of years now > > saying the the 5 to 6 BSP buildset change was the last major interface > > facing RSB churn after I was received strong feedback on the breakage I > > caused and this is a bigger change The MR !127 conversation https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/tools/rtems-source-builder/-/merge_requests/127#note_119902 repeated what I said in discord and added a requirement for any change to happen: > It breaks backwards compatibility of tools used to build and integrate RTEMS > and for me that is the top priority. To have me agree and approve any related > MR it has to build the K26 stack with `rtems-deployment` `HEAD` plus build > the K26 with the 6.1 RSB so show backward compatibility. -- View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/tools/rtems-source-builder/-/issues/92#note_120007 You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.
_______________________________________________ bugs mailing list bugs@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs
