Thread: [Linuxptp-users] Planning release 1.8
PTP IEEE 1588 stack for Linux
Brought to you by:
rcochran
From: Richard C. <ric...@gm...> - 2016-10-16 11:09:51
|
Dear linuxptp users and developers, I am planning to release version 1.8 in one week, without any major new features, in order to fix the regression in version 1.7. [ Sound familiar? The same thing happened to 1.6. I don't have the time to maintain stable branches, and so my policy is to push out a new release in case of regressions. Anyone sticking with older versions who is affected by the regressions can easily pick up the small fixes. ] The one bug that needs fixing is the one-step mode. This broke between 1.6 and 1.7. I am also planning to include the RTNL link handling as a new feature. If you know of any other problems with 1.7 or in the current git head, please let me know right away. Thanks, Richard |
From: Keller, J. E <jac...@in...> - 2016-10-17 20:39:23
|
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 13:09 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > Dear linuxptp users and developers, > > I am planning to release version 1.8 in one week, without any major > new features, in order to fix the regression in version 1.7. > > [ Sound familiar? The same thing happened to 1.6. I don't have the > time to maintain stable branches, and so my policy is to push out a > new release in case of regressions. Anyone sticking with older > versions who is affected by the regressions can easily pick up the > small fixes. ] > > The one bug that needs fixing is the one-step mode. This broke > between 1.6 and 1.7. I am also planning to include the RTNL link > handling as a new feature. > Sounds good to me. I don't have any current issues, but being able to let people know that the RTNL link handling will be in 1.7 will be nice. Thanks for all your work. Regards, Jake |
From: Richard C. <ric...@gm...> - 2016-10-18 06:38:15
|
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:39:16PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote: > Sounds good to me. I don't have any current issues, but being able to > let people know that the RTNL link handling will be in 1.7 will be > nice. Thanks for all your work. Maybe rtnl is not quite ready yet. I'd like positive feedback that it really is working. Thanks, Richard |
From: Keller, J. E <jac...@in...> - 2016-10-19 00:28:20
|
On Tue, 2016-10-18 at 08:38 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:39:16PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote: > > > > Sounds good to me. I don't have any current issues, but being able > > to > > let people know that the RTNL link handling will be in 1.7 will be > > nice. Thanks for all your work. > > Maybe rtnl is not quite ready yet. I'd like positive feedback that > it > really is working. > > Thanks, > Richard I'll give them a whack tomorrow and see what I think. It seems Miroslav is also testing them pretty well. Thanks, Jake |
From: Tino M. <tin...@al...> - 2016-10-18 09:27:50
|
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 13:09 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > If you know of any other problems with 1.7 or in the current git > head, > please let me know right away. Hi Richard, I'd like to test, but I don't see any commits since the 1.7 release, except for one commit from August. I'm using git://git.code.sf.net/p/linuxptp/code. Is this intended? Regards, Tino |
From: Tino M. <tin...@al...> - 2016-10-18 10:43:59
|
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 13:09 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > If you know of any other problems with 1.7 or in the current git > head, > please let me know right away. Hi Richard, I'd like to test, but I don't see any commits since the 1.7 release, except for one commit from August. I'm using git://git.code.sf.net/p/linuxptp/code. Is this intended? Regards, Tino |
From: Richard C. <ric...@gm...> - 2016-10-18 12:24:10
|
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:43:39PM +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > I'd like to test, but I don't see any commits since the 1.7 release, > except for one commit from August. I'm > using git://git.code.sf.net/p/linuxptp/code. Is this intended? Yes, I don't push out anything unless the patches have been reviewed or at least had a chance (at least one week) to be reviewed. Are you able to apply patches from the list? The patches in question are: 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev [PATCH RFC 0/2] Fix one-step regression 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev ├─>[PATCH RFC 1/2] Fix regression in one-step configuration. 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev └─>[PATCH RFC 2/2] clock: Remove cruft from the creation method. 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev [PATCH V3 0/7] Link state tracking 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev ├─>[PATCH V3 1/7] rtnl: Introduce RT netlink sockets. 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev ├─>[PATCH V3 2/7] sk: Add a method to obtain a socket for utility purposes. 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev ├─>[PATCH V3 3/7] clock: Remove stray semicolon. 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev ├─>[PATCH V3 4/7] clock: Fix coding style within a helper function. 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev ├─>[PATCH V3 5/7] clock: Remember each port's interface index. 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev ├─>[PATCH V3 6/7] port: Provide methods to set and get the link status. 16.Oct'16 To linuxptp-dev └─>[PATCH V3 7/7] clock: Monitor the link status using a RT netlink socket. 17.Oct'16 Miroslav Lichva [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/3] Optional prefix for ptp4l/phc2sys log messages 17.Oct'16 Miroslav Lichva ├─>[Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] Add options to prefix ptp4l and phc2sys log messages. 17.Oct'16 Miroslav Lichva ├─>[Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH RFC 2/3] timemaster: prefix ptp4l and phc2sys messages. 17.Oct'16 Miroslav Lichva ├─>[Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH RFC 3/3] timemaster: check support for SW time stamping. If you can't test them easily, then I can delay the release until about one week after pushing them out. The "link state tracking" series will be changed once more as Miroslav suggested. Thanks, Richard |
From: Tino M. <tin...@al...> - 2016-10-18 14:26:12
|
On Tue, 2016-10-18 at 14:23 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:43:39PM +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > > I'd like to test, but I don't see any commits since the 1.7 > > release, > > except for one commit from August. I'm > > using git://git.code.sf.net/p/linuxptp/code. Is this intended? > > > Yes, I don't push out anything unless the patches have been reviewed > or at least had a chance (at least one week) to be reviewed. How about a git branch "experimental" or similar? Regards, Tino |
From: Richard C. <ric...@gm...> - 2016-10-21 09:22:15
|
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 04:25:48PM +0200, Tino Mettler wrote: > How about a git branch "experimental" or similar? FYI, I just pushed out the rtnl work. The log prefix stuff will have to wait until I have a chance to try it out myself... Thanks, Richard |