Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

1.14 Merge Order #9831

Closed
galak opened this issue Sep 6, 2018 · 14 comments
Closed

1.14 Merge Order #9831

galak opened this issue Sep 6, 2018 · 14 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@galak
Copy link
Collaborator

galak commented Sep 6, 2018

This Issue is to track which changes should try and get merged in which order early on so we can reduce churn & conflicts:

Topic Merge Status impact to code base PR Owner (s)
Move SoC code to top-level Merged impacts new SoC supports in arch/*/soc #9776 @nashif
DTS code generation not ready (#8499) #8561 @erwango @b0661
CMake library generation changes not ready #8451 @tejlmand
Moving to new Logging subsystem in progress numerous PRs logging PRs @nashif
Moving to new shell subsystem in progress #9362 @jarz-nordic @carlescufi
Multi-Repo, west tool in progress #7338 @carlescufi
@galak galak added this to the v1.14.0 milestone Sep 6, 2018
@mike-scott
Copy link
Contributor

Where does the move to socket API support in the networking subsystems land in this list?

@nashif
Copy link
Member

nashif commented Sep 6, 2018

nice table :)

@nashif
Copy link
Member

nashif commented Sep 6, 2018

Where does the move to socket API support in the networking subsystems land in this list?

which PR is that?

@mike-scott
Copy link
Contributor

@nashif this is the primary tracking issue for socket API support: #7591 Hopefully, before the weekend, I plan to submit an RFC/Proof-of-concept PR changing CoAP and LwM2M so that they support both sockets and net-app (based on Kconfig).

@carlescufi
Copy link
Member

@galak added some additional info, thanks for creating this.

@nashif
Copy link
Member

nashif commented Sep 6, 2018

@mike-scott

@nashif this is the primary tracking issue for socket API support: #7591 Hopefully, before the weekend, I plan to submit an RFC/Proof-of-concept PR changing CoAP and LwM2M so that they support both sockets and net-app (based on Kconfig).

This is more or less for everything that is either complete or semi-complete and intrusive in nature, i.e. touches multiple components.
We are trying to avoid lots of churn by prioritising review/merge and focusing on the high priority PRs we want to get in for 1.14.

Everything else continues as usual.

@pfalcon
Copy link
Contributor

pfalcon commented Sep 6, 2018

and intrusive in nature

That's how I understand this list too. For sockets, stuff-before-sockets remains there for the foreseeable future, so socket tasks aren't for this list. (Unlike e.g. logging, which, if we decided to switch too, needs to be done, or it's really a pain to deal with 2 systems).

@mike-scott ^^

@mike-scott
Copy link
Contributor

ok

@mbolivar
Copy link
Contributor

mbolivar commented Sep 6, 2018

I'm confused about the relationship between the various pull requests regarding code generation:

I'm also confused about what the problems that are trying to be solved are, and which of these PRs are dependencies versus competing implementations.

Variously, I see attempts to:

  • add a Python --> C code generation library (after abandoning a "CHAOS" C header only attempt)
  • standardize pin muxing using code generation
  • convert DTS to JSON for various purposes, including as an input to the code generation library
  • generate device instantiation code from JSON + code generation
  • control device driver build system flags based on compatible flags in DTS
  • probably more that I've missed

There isn't an umbrella issue on GitHub named in the table here that describes the problem, solution space, etc.

Can someone point me in the right direction? There appears to be quite a lot of vigorous discussion in the PRs and it's overwhelming.

If this is going to be an intrusive change, it would be great to have a single place with a clear summary of the problem, proposed solutions, etc., especially if at least the problem statement has buy-in from all the parties involved.

@erwango
Copy link
Member

erwango commented Sep 7, 2018

@mbolivar , agreed this global pictures miss clarity. Though, a umbrella issue has been created: #8499,
and this should be the reference.
Let's discuss in this one in order not to pollute current issue.

@mbolivar
Copy link
Contributor

mbolivar commented Sep 7, 2018

@mbolivar , agreed this global pictures miss clarity. Though, a umbrella issue has been created: #8499,
and this should be the reference.
Let's discuss in this one in order not to pollute current issue.

Thank you @erwango for the clarification! I will study the issue in #8499.

@galak could you please add the issues related to each PR to your table if it's not too much trouble? I imagine this table will be read by many people since it's the comprehensive list of highly intrusive changes for v1.14, so it should be worth the effort.

@Olivier-ProGlove
Copy link
Contributor

Being the author of numerous logging pull-requests, I am also waiting for @nordic-krch's pull-request: #9761 to be reviewed to rebase and refactor my pull-requests on master.

@nashif
Copy link
Member

nashif commented Sep 11, 2018

meeting minutes:

  • soc tree move to top level: missing docs, ready to go as first PR, no major PRs in progress that would block it
  • Logging: setup a meeting with developers and users and come up with a plan
  • DTS:
    • review EDTS and merge (this is important and perquisite for many changes, so it needs to be dealt with highest priority.

@nashif
Copy link
Member

nashif commented Sep 12, 2018

one other big and intrusive change:

  • libc and type changes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests