You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@nuttx.apache.org by Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com> on 2020/06/23 06:36:51 UTC

[VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Hello all,
Apache NuttX (Incubating) 9.1.0 has been staged under [1] and it's time to vote
on accepting it for release. If approved we will seek final release approval
from the IPMC. Voting will be open for 72hr.

Because this project targets embedded systems there is more complexity involved
in the build process.  We have tried to make some improvements around this for
new people to the project and are in the process of updating our sites and wiki
to simplify the getting started process.
Two starting points:
 * README.txt -- This is found in the Apache NuttX source and is extensive.
 * Unofficial NuttX Companion -- Located at [3], this is a currently unofficial
   opinionated guide maintained by some of the project committers.


A minimum of 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 than binding -1
are required to pass.

The Apache requirements for approving a release can be found here [4]
"Before voting +1 [P]PMC members are required to download the signed
source code package,
compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own
platform, along
with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF
policy on releases."

A document to walk through some of this process has been published on
our project wiki
and can be found here [5].  I did try to walk through this document,
but please comment
if you find anything not clear.

[ ] +1 accept (indicate what you validated - e.g. performed the non-RM
items in [5])
[ ] -1 reject (explanation required)

Thank you all,
Brennan Ashton

SCM Information:
  Release tag: releases/9.1.0-RC0
  Hash for the release incubating-nuttx tag:
5d5e6f7192d24a6241aa3e22c729a85eda7afe2d
  Hash for the release incubating-nuttx-apps tag:
6fd57ba0712a78b20bd3ce49022924810a5552c7

[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nuttx/9.1.0-RC0/
[2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/nuttx-9.1.0-RC0/ReleaseNotes
[3] https://nuttx-companion.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
[4] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
[5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/Validating+a+staged+Release

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Alin Jerpelea <je...@gmail.com>.
those are the bin and config diffs between 9.0 and 9.1 for Spresense board
(nsh defconfig)

file size
2232796 Jun 24 07:34 nuttx-9.0
2274908 Jun 24 07:31 nuttx-9.1

--- conf-9.0    2020-06-24 07:34:00.244923392 +0200
+++ conf-9.1    2020-06-24 07:30:35.748476384 +0200
@@ -129,10 +129,8 @@
 # CONFIG_ARCH_ARM1156T2 is not set
 # CONFIG_ARCH_ARM1176JZ is not set
 # CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXM0 is not set
-# CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXM23 is not set
 CONFIG_ARCH_ARMV7M=y
 # CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXM3 is not set
-# CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXM33 is not set
 CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXM4=y
 # CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXM7 is not set
 # CONFIG_ARCH_ARMV7A is not set
@@ -144,6 +142,10 @@
 # CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXR4 is not set
 # CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXR5 is not set
 # CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXR7 is not set
+# CONFIG_ARCH_ARMV8M is not set
+# CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXM23 is not set
+# CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXM33 is not set
+# CONFIG_ARCH_CORTEXM35P is not set
 CONFIG_ARCH_FAMILY="armv7-m"
 CONFIG_ARCH_CHIP="cxd56xx"
 # CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_TRUSTZONE is not set
@@ -165,8 +167,6 @@
 # CONFIG_ARMV7M_HAVE_DTCM is not set
 # CONFIG_ARMV7M_TOOLCHAIN_IARL is not set
 # CONFIG_ARMV7M_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT is not set
-# CONFIG_ARMV7M_TOOLCHAIN_CODEREDL is not set
-# CONFIG_ARMV7M_TOOLCHAIN_CODESOURCERYL is not set
 CONFIG_ARMV7M_TOOLCHAIN_GNU_EABIL=y
 # CONFIG_ARMV7M_TOOLCHAIN_CLANGL is not set
 # CONFIG_ARMV7M_HAVE_STACKCHECK is not set
@@ -387,8 +387,12 @@
 # Board-Specific Options
 #
 CONFIG_CXD56_SPIFLASHSIZE=0x400000
-# CONFIG_SPRESENSE_EXTENSION is not set
+
+#
+# Audio Options
+#
 # CONFIG_CXD56_IMAGEPROC is not set
+# CONFIG_SPRESENSE_EXTENSION is not set

 #
 # LTE Options
@@ -457,7 +461,6 @@
 #
 # Pthread Options
 #
-CONFIG_NPTHREAD_KEYS=4
 # CONFIG_PTHREAD_MUTEX_TYPES is not set
 CONFIG_PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST=y
 # CONFIG_PTHREAD_MUTEX_UNSAFE is not set
@@ -945,7 +948,6 @@
 # CONFIG_EOL_IS_LF is not set
 # CONFIG_EOL_IS_BOTH_CRLF is not set
 CONFIG_EOL_IS_EITHER_CRLF=y
-# CONFIG_MEMCPY_VIK is not set
 # CONFIG_LIBM is not set

 #
@@ -994,6 +996,7 @@
 #
 # memcpy/memset Options
 #
+# CONFIG_MEMCPY_VIK is not set
 # CONFIG_MEMSET_OPTSPEED is not set

 #
@@ -1011,12 +1014,12 @@
 # Time/Time Zone Support
 #
 # CONFIG_LIBC_LOCALTIME is not set
-CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_TLS=y

 #
 # Thread Local Storage (TLS)
 #
-# CONFIG_TLS is not set
+# CONFIG_TLS_ALIGNED is not set
+CONFIG_TLS_NELEM=4

 #
 # Network-Related Options
@@ -1029,10 +1032,9 @@
 # NETDB Support
 #
 # CONFIG_LIBC_GAISTRERROR is not set
-CONFIG_NETDB_BUFSIZE=128
+CONFIG_NETDB_BUFSIZE=256
 CONFIG_NETDB_MAX_IPADDR=1
 # CONFIG_NETDB_HOSTFILE is not set
-CONFIG_LIBC_IOCTL_VARIADIC=y
 CONFIG_LIB_SENDFILE_BUFSIZE=512

 #
@@ -1084,7 +1086,6 @@
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_AUDIO_SOUND is not set
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_BATTERY is not set
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_SIXAXIS is not set
-# CONFIG_EXAMPLES_BUTTONS is not set
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_CALIB_UDELAY is not set
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_CCTYPE is not set
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_CHARGER is not set
@@ -1097,6 +1098,7 @@
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_FTPC is not set
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_FTPD is not set
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_GPS is not set
+# CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HDC1008 is not set
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO is not set
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLOXX is not set
 # CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HIDKBD is not set
@@ -1257,7 +1259,7 @@
 # CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_RM is not set
 # CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_RMDIR is not set
 # CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_SET is not set
-# CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_SH is not set
+# CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_SOURCE is not set
 # CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_SLEEP is not set
 # CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_TIME is not set
 # CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_TEST is not set

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:17 AM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/23/2020 6:59 PM, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> >
> >> I compared it to release 9.0 and noticed it increased about 3 KiB of
> >> Flash usage, but I didn't check further to see what happened.
> >>
> >> NuttX 9.0
> >>
> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    68624        104       2496      71224      11638    nuttx
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.0.0
> >> nsh> free
> >>               total       used       free    largest
> >> Umem:       192976       7536     185440     125248
> >> nsh>
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttX 9.1 RC0
> >>
> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    71732        104       2476      74312      12248    nuttx
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.1.0
> >> nsh> free
> >>               total       used       free    largest
> >> Umem:       192992       7536     185456     125264
> >> nsh>
> >
> > This might indicate a significant problem.  One possible explanation
> > might be that a new configuration option enables logic by default that
> > it should not.  Almost any explanation you can think of suggests a
> > problem.
>
> Can you look into this Alan?  I would think that an unexplained 3Kb size
> increase in such a trivial configuration would warrant a -1 vote.
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Alin Jerpelea <je...@gmail.com>.
 +1,

I checked
- Signature and hash OK
- LICENSE, DISCLAIMER and NOTICE exist
- Build from source.Spresense board

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:17 AM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/23/2020 6:59 PM, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> >
> >> I compared it to release 9.0 and noticed it increased about 3 KiB of
> >> Flash usage, but I didn't check further to see what happened.
> >>
> >> NuttX 9.0
> >>
> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    68624        104       2496      71224      11638    nuttx
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.0.0
> >> nsh> free
> >>               total       used       free    largest
> >> Umem:       192976       7536     185440     125248
> >> nsh>
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttX 9.1 RC0
> >>
> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    71732        104       2476      74312      12248    nuttx
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.1.0
> >> nsh> free
> >>               total       used       free    largest
> >> Umem:       192992       7536     185456     125264
> >> nsh>
> >
> > This might indicate a significant problem.  One possible explanation
> > might be that a new configuration option enables logic by default that
> > it should not.  Almost any explanation you can think of suggests a
> > problem.
>
> Can you look into this Alan?  I would think that an unexplained 3Kb size
> increase in such a trivial configuration would warrant a -1 vote.
>
>
>

Sv: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by "Jerpelea, Alin" <Al...@sony.com>.
+1,

I checked
- Signature and hash OK
- LICENSE, DISCLAIMER and NOTICE exist
- Build from source.Spresense board
________________________________
Från: Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>
Skickat: den 24 juni 2020 07:52
Till: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
Ämne: Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Greg and Alan,
Started looking and there are some changes in the diff in the
generated config.h as can be seen here
One change is the date command is no longer disabled by default.  This
accounts for 2304 bytes, leaving only 800 byte change.
I'm not sure if changing the default was expected, but I dont think
this should block the release.
The TLS changes are harder for me to judge and the netdb change I
think just changes ram usage.  I can dig more, if you think it is
necessary, I agree that we should keep and eye on the size though. I
had some thoughts on keeping the build artifacts around so we could
track and test things easier (hard to go back in time with both repos
changing).

9.1.0
   text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
  71731        104       2476      74311      12247    ./9.1/nuttx

9.1.0 (with date disabled)
   text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
  69427        104       2476      72007      11947    nuttx


--- /home/bashton/nuttx/apache/sizetest/9.0/config.h
+++ /home/bashton/nuttx/apache/sizetest/9.1/config.h
@@ -135,7 +135,6 @@
 #define CONFIG_TASK_NAME_SIZE 31
 #define CONFIG_MAX_TASKS 16
 #define CONFIG_SCHED_WAITPID 1
-#define CONFIG_NPTHREAD_KEYS 4
 #define CONFIG_PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST 1
 #define CONFIG_DEV_CONSOLE 1
 #define CONFIG_SDCLONE_DISABLE 1
@@ -196,15 +195,14 @@
 #define CONFIG_POSIX_SPAWN_PROXY_STACKSIZE 1024
 #define CONFIG_TASK_SPAWN_DEFAULT_STACKSIZE 2048
 #define CONFIG_LIB_HOSTNAME ""
-#define CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_TLS 1
-#define CONFIG_NETDB_BUFSIZE 128
+#define CONFIG_TLS_NELEM 4
+#define CONFIG_NETDB_BUFSIZE 256
 #define CONFIG_NETDB_MAX_IPADDR 1
-#define CONFIG_LIBC_IOCTL_VARIADIC 1
 #define CONFIG_LIB_SENDFILE_BUFSIZE 512
 #define CONFIG_BUILTIN 1
 #define CONFIG_HAVE_CXX 1
 #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO 1
-#define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PROGNAME hello
+#define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PROGNAME "hello"
 #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PRIORITY 100
 #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_STACKSIZE 2048
 #define CONFIG_NSH_LIBRARY 1
@@ -214,7 +212,6 @@
 #define CONFIG_NSH_MAXARGUMENTS 7
 #define CONFIG_NSH_NESTDEPTH 3
 #define CONFIG_NSH_BUILTIN_APPS 1
-#define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_DATE 1
 #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_LOSMART 1
 #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_PRINTF 1
 #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_TRUNCATE 1
@@ -227,7 +224,7 @@
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH 1
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PRIORITY 100
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_STACKSIZE 2048
-#define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PROGNAME nsh
+#define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PROGNAME "nsh"
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_CXXINITIALIZE 1
 #define CONFIG_READLINE_HAVE_EXTMATCH 1
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_READLINE 1

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:17 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/23/2020 6:59 PM, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> >
> >> I compared it to release 9.0 and noticed it increased about 3 KiB of
> >> Flash usage, but I didn't check further to see what happened.
> >>
> >> NuttX 9.0
> >>
> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    68624        104       2496      71224      11638    nuttx
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.0.0
> >> nsh> free
> >>               total       used       free    largest
> >> Umem:       192976       7536     185440     125248
> >> nsh>
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttX 9.1 RC0
> >>
> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    71732        104       2476      74312      12248    nuttx
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.1.0
> >> nsh> free
> >>               total       used       free    largest
> >> Umem:       192992       7536     185456     125264
> >> nsh>
> >
> > This might indicate a significant problem.  One possible explanation
> > might be that a new configuration option enables logic by default that
> > it should not.  Almost any explanation you can think of suggests a
> > problem.
>
> Can you look into this Alan?  I would think that an unexplained 3Kb size
> increase in such a trivial configuration would warrant a -1 vote.
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
> Yes, it should be nice to have bloaty integrated on CI system to ring
> an alarm when something like this happen.
If it works as advertised, then this would be a good idea.  Some gradual 
code growth is natural natural due to the nature of the NuttX roadmap -- 
to be a complete, small POSIX OS for embedded systems.  But large step 
changes in size must be accounted for and avoided whenever possible.  In 
my opinion, a release that includes such a large step is code size is a  
bad release.  Catching them as soon as they are introduced would be a 
good thing.

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Alan Carvalho de Assis <ac...@gmail.com>.
Hi David,

Thank you for this suggestion!

Yes, it should be nice to have bloaty integrated on CI system to ring
an alarm when something like this happen.

BR,

Alan

On 6/24/20, David Sidrane <Da...@nscdg.com> wrote:
> This is a cool tool.
>
> https://github.com/google/bloaty
>
> Here is a set of ways to use it.
> https://github.com/PX4/Firmware/blob/4e7dedede79872401f50c733bd74e5ddf1fa41f1/cmake/bloaty.cmake
> (please ignore the cmake...)
>
> This is the one that can be used to see the deltas, in our case from mater
> to the PR. But it is easy to compare to a release branch.
>
> # bloaty compare with last master build
> 	add_custom_target(bloaty_compare_master
> 		COMMAND wget -c -N --no-verbose
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/px4-travis/Firmware/master/${PX4_BOARD_VENDOR}_${PX4_BOARD_MODEL}_${PX4_BOARD_LABEL}.elf
> -
> O master.elf
> 		COMMAND ${BLOATY_PROGRAM} -d symbols ${BLOATY_OPTS} $<TARGET_FILE:px4> --
> master.elf
> 		DEPENDS px4
> 		WORKING_DIRECTORY ${PX4_BINARY_DIR}
> 		VERBATIM
> 		USES_TERMINAL
> 		)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bashton@brennanashton.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:53 PM
> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release
>
> Greg and Alan,
> Started looking and there are some changes in the diff in the
> generated config.h as can be seen here
> One change is the date command is no longer disabled by default.  This
> accounts for 2304 bytes, leaving only 800 byte change.
> I'm not sure if changing the default was expected, but I dont think
> this should block the release.
> The TLS changes are harder for me to judge and the netdb change I
> think just changes ram usage.  I can dig more, if you think it is
> necessary, I agree that we should keep and eye on the size though. I
> had some thoughts on keeping the build artifacts around so we could
> track and test things easier (hard to go back in time with both repos
> changing).
>
> 9.1.0
>    text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
>   71731        104       2476      74311      12247    ./9.1/nuttx
>
> 9.1.0 (with date disabled)
>    text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
>   69427        104       2476      72007      11947    nuttx
>
>
> --- /home/bashton/nuttx/apache/sizetest/9.0/config.h
> +++ /home/bashton/nuttx/apache/sizetest/9.1/config.h
> @@ -135,7 +135,6 @@
>  #define CONFIG_TASK_NAME_SIZE 31
>  #define CONFIG_MAX_TASKS 16
>  #define CONFIG_SCHED_WAITPID 1
> -#define CONFIG_NPTHREAD_KEYS 4
>  #define CONFIG_PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST 1
>  #define CONFIG_DEV_CONSOLE 1
>  #define CONFIG_SDCLONE_DISABLE 1
> @@ -196,15 +195,14 @@
>  #define CONFIG_POSIX_SPAWN_PROXY_STACKSIZE 1024
>  #define CONFIG_TASK_SPAWN_DEFAULT_STACKSIZE 2048
>  #define CONFIG_LIB_HOSTNAME ""
> -#define CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_TLS 1
> -#define CONFIG_NETDB_BUFSIZE 128
> +#define CONFIG_TLS_NELEM 4
> +#define CONFIG_NETDB_BUFSIZE 256
>  #define CONFIG_NETDB_MAX_IPADDR 1
> -#define CONFIG_LIBC_IOCTL_VARIADIC 1
>  #define CONFIG_LIB_SENDFILE_BUFSIZE 512
>  #define CONFIG_BUILTIN 1
>  #define CONFIG_HAVE_CXX 1
>  #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO 1
> -#define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PROGNAME hello
> +#define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PROGNAME "hello"
>  #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PRIORITY 100
>  #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_STACKSIZE 2048
>  #define CONFIG_NSH_LIBRARY 1
> @@ -214,7 +212,6 @@
>  #define CONFIG_NSH_MAXARGUMENTS 7
>  #define CONFIG_NSH_NESTDEPTH 3
>  #define CONFIG_NSH_BUILTIN_APPS 1
> -#define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_DATE 1
>  #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_LOSMART 1
>  #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_PRINTF 1
>  #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_TRUNCATE 1
> @@ -227,7 +224,7 @@
>  #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH 1
>  #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PRIORITY 100
>  #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_STACKSIZE 2048
> -#define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PROGNAME nsh
> +#define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PROGNAME "nsh"
>  #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_CXXINITIALIZE 1
>  #define CONFIG_READLINE_HAVE_EXTMATCH 1
>  #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_READLINE 1
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:17 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/23/2020 6:59 PM, Gregory Nutt wrote:
>> >
>> >> I compared it to release 9.0 and noticed it increased about 3 KiB of
>> >> Flash usage, but I didn't check further to see what happened.
>> >>
>> >> NuttX 9.0
>> >>
>> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
>> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
>> >>    68624        104       2496      71224      11638    nuttx
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.0.0
>> >> nsh> free
>> >>               total       used       free    largest
>> >> Umem:       192976       7536     185440     125248
>> >> nsh>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> NuttX 9.1 RC0
>> >>
>> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
>> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
>> >>    71732        104       2476      74312      12248    nuttx
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.1.0
>> >> nsh> free
>> >>               total       used       free    largest
>> >> Umem:       192992       7536     185456     125264
>> >> nsh>
>> >
>> > This might indicate a significant problem.  One possible explanation
>> > might be that a new configuration option enables logic by default that
>> > it should not.  Almost any explanation you can think of suggests a
>> > problem.
>>
>> Can you look into this Alan?  I would think that an unexplained 3Kb size
>> increase in such a trivial configuration would warrant a -1 vote.
>>
>>
>

RE: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by David Sidrane <Da...@nscdg.com>.
This is a cool tool.

https://github.com/google/bloaty

Here is a set of ways to use it.
https://github.com/PX4/Firmware/blob/4e7dedede79872401f50c733bd74e5ddf1fa41f1/cmake/bloaty.cmake
(please ignore the cmake...)

This is the one that can be used to see the deltas, in our case from mater
to the PR. But it is easy to compare to a release branch.

# bloaty compare with last master build
	add_custom_target(bloaty_compare_master
		COMMAND wget -c -N --no-verbose
https://s3.amazonaws.com/px4-travis/Firmware/master/${PX4_BOARD_VENDOR}_${PX4_BOARD_MODEL}_${PX4_BOARD_LABEL}.elf
-
O master.elf
		COMMAND ${BLOATY_PROGRAM} -d symbols ${BLOATY_OPTS} $<TARGET_FILE:px4> --
master.elf
		DEPENDS px4
		WORKING_DIRECTORY ${PX4_BINARY_DIR}
		VERBATIM
		USES_TERMINAL
		)


-----Original Message-----
From: Brennan Ashton [mailto:bashton@brennanashton.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 10:53 PM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Greg and Alan,
Started looking and there are some changes in the diff in the
generated config.h as can be seen here
One change is the date command is no longer disabled by default.  This
accounts for 2304 bytes, leaving only 800 byte change.
I'm not sure if changing the default was expected, but I dont think
this should block the release.
The TLS changes are harder for me to judge and the netdb change I
think just changes ram usage.  I can dig more, if you think it is
necessary, I agree that we should keep and eye on the size though. I
had some thoughts on keeping the build artifacts around so we could
track and test things easier (hard to go back in time with both repos
changing).

9.1.0
   text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
  71731        104       2476      74311      12247    ./9.1/nuttx

9.1.0 (with date disabled)
   text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
  69427        104       2476      72007      11947    nuttx


--- /home/bashton/nuttx/apache/sizetest/9.0/config.h
+++ /home/bashton/nuttx/apache/sizetest/9.1/config.h
@@ -135,7 +135,6 @@
 #define CONFIG_TASK_NAME_SIZE 31
 #define CONFIG_MAX_TASKS 16
 #define CONFIG_SCHED_WAITPID 1
-#define CONFIG_NPTHREAD_KEYS 4
 #define CONFIG_PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST 1
 #define CONFIG_DEV_CONSOLE 1
 #define CONFIG_SDCLONE_DISABLE 1
@@ -196,15 +195,14 @@
 #define CONFIG_POSIX_SPAWN_PROXY_STACKSIZE 1024
 #define CONFIG_TASK_SPAWN_DEFAULT_STACKSIZE 2048
 #define CONFIG_LIB_HOSTNAME ""
-#define CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_TLS 1
-#define CONFIG_NETDB_BUFSIZE 128
+#define CONFIG_TLS_NELEM 4
+#define CONFIG_NETDB_BUFSIZE 256
 #define CONFIG_NETDB_MAX_IPADDR 1
-#define CONFIG_LIBC_IOCTL_VARIADIC 1
 #define CONFIG_LIB_SENDFILE_BUFSIZE 512
 #define CONFIG_BUILTIN 1
 #define CONFIG_HAVE_CXX 1
 #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO 1
-#define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PROGNAME hello
+#define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PROGNAME "hello"
 #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PRIORITY 100
 #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_STACKSIZE 2048
 #define CONFIG_NSH_LIBRARY 1
@@ -214,7 +212,6 @@
 #define CONFIG_NSH_MAXARGUMENTS 7
 #define CONFIG_NSH_NESTDEPTH 3
 #define CONFIG_NSH_BUILTIN_APPS 1
-#define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_DATE 1
 #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_LOSMART 1
 #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_PRINTF 1
 #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_TRUNCATE 1
@@ -227,7 +224,7 @@
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH 1
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PRIORITY 100
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_STACKSIZE 2048
-#define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PROGNAME nsh
+#define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PROGNAME "nsh"
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_CXXINITIALIZE 1
 #define CONFIG_READLINE_HAVE_EXTMATCH 1
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_READLINE 1

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:17 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/23/2020 6:59 PM, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> >
> >> I compared it to release 9.0 and noticed it increased about 3 KiB of
> >> Flash usage, but I didn't check further to see what happened.
> >>
> >> NuttX 9.0
> >>
> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    68624        104       2496      71224      11638    nuttx
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.0.0
> >> nsh> free
> >>               total       used       free    largest
> >> Umem:       192976       7536     185440     125248
> >> nsh>
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttX 9.1 RC0
> >>
> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    71732        104       2476      74312      12248    nuttx
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.1.0
> >> nsh> free
> >>               total       used       free    largest
> >> Umem:       192992       7536     185456     125264
> >> nsh>
> >
> > This might indicate a significant problem.  One possible explanation
> > might be that a new configuration option enables logic by default that
> > it should not.  Almost any explanation you can think of suggests a
> > problem.
>
> Can you look into this Alan?  I would think that an unexplained 3Kb size
> increase in such a trivial configuration would warrant a -1 vote.
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
On 6/24/2020 9:20 AM, Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 6/24/20, Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Changing the default is not the problem.  The problem is when the
>> default configuration value is changed, the all configurations effected
>> by that change in the default setting should be updated so that they are
>> not effected.  That is, so the net result is no change.  That was not
>> done and that is an error.
>>
>> In this case, the NSH 'date' command used to default to 'disabled'
>> UNLESS an RTC was supported, then the default is 'enabled'.  There error
>> is, that that the 'date' command should have also been explicitly
>> disabled in ALL NSH configurations that do not have the RTC enabled.
>>
>> That has a negative user impact and would think that correcting that is
>> more important than meeting an artificial release deadline.
>>
>>> The TLS changes are harder for me to judge and the netdb change I
>>> think just changes ram usage.
>> I don't believe that the TLS changes added any significant size. It
>> replaces one small, simple implementation with another small, simple
>> implementation.  It is hard to envision how this would cause any
>> noticeable size increase.  But perhaps.
>>
>> Another thing that I noted in Alin's configuration comparison is that
>> the variadic version of the ioctl() interface is no longer optional.
>> That I expect will add a couple hundred bytes to the size of every
>> configuration.
>>
>> The main cause of the size increase is the default 'date' command
>> setting.  Not only does that enabled the NSH data command but draws all
>> of the time computation logic into the build.  This will probably break
>> many of the more resource constrained configurations.
>>
> Currently it appears to depend on !CONFIG_DEFAULT_SMALL only:
>
> config NSH_DISABLE_DATE
>          bool "Disable date"
>          default y if DEFAULT_SMALL
>          default n if !DEFAULT_SMALL
>
> Shouldn't it depends on !CONFIG_DEFAULT_SMALL && CONFIG_RTC ?
>
> BR,
>
> Alan

I have looked at this too.  I think that the correct change is to revert 
commit 4adb83c754500cfebe4c24a498eb4139e3ff8866:

commit 4adb83c754500cfebe4c24a498eb4139e3ff8866
Author: chao.an <an...@xiaomi.com>
Date:   Tue Apr 7 16:33:05 2020 +0800

     nshlib: remove the dependency of date on RTC

     Change-Id: I98bd022fdc901ecb4e2e45a0faf779d83c260844
     Signed-off-by: chao.an <an...@xiaomi.com>

diff --git a/nshlib/Kconfig b/nshlib/Kconfig
index abc96d69..a6aa7906 100644
--- a/nshlib/Kconfig
+++ b/nshlib/Kconfig
@@ -259,8 +259,8 @@ config NSH_DISABLE_CMP

  config NSH_DISABLE_DATE
         bool "Disable date"
-       default n if RTC
-       default y if !RTC
+       default y if DEFAULT_SMALL
+       default n if !DEFAULT_SMALL

  config NSH_DISABLE_DD
         bool "Disable dd"

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Alan Carvalho de Assis <ac...@gmail.com>.
Hi Greg,

On 6/24/20, Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Changing the default is not the problem.  The problem is when the
> default configuration value is changed, the all configurations effected
> by that change in the default setting should be updated so that they are
> not effected.  That is, so the net result is no change.  That was not
> done and that is an error.
>
> In this case, the NSH 'date' command used to default to 'disabled'
> UNLESS an RTC was supported, then the default is 'enabled'.  There error
> is, that that the 'date' command should have also been explicitly
> disabled in ALL NSH configurations that do not have the RTC enabled.
>
> That has a negative user impact and would think that correcting that is
> more important than meeting an artificial release deadline.
>
>> The TLS changes are harder for me to judge and the netdb change I
>> think just changes ram usage.
>
> I don't believe that the TLS changes added any significant size. It
> replaces one small, simple implementation with another small, simple
> implementation.  It is hard to envision how this would cause any
> noticeable size increase.  But perhaps.
>
> Another thing that I noted in Alin's configuration comparison is that
> the variadic version of the ioctl() interface is no longer optional.
> That I expect will add a couple hundred bytes to the size of every
> configuration.
>
> The main cause of the size increase is the default 'date' command
> setting.  Not only does that enabled the NSH data command but draws all
> of the time computation logic into the build.  This will probably break
> many of the more resource constrained configurations.
>

Currently it appears to depend on !CONFIG_DEFAULT_SMALL only:

config NSH_DISABLE_DATE
        bool "Disable date"
        default y if DEFAULT_SMALL
        default n if !DEFAULT_SMALL

Shouldn't it depends on !CONFIG_DEFAULT_SMALL && CONFIG_RTC ?

BR,

Alan

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
On 6/24/2020 12:03 PM, Brennan Ashton wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 10:56 AM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> My concern is that if we sweep things under the carpet now and continue
>> with the 9.1 eyes shut as if there is nothing wrong, we will continue to
>> degrade the OS footprint over time.   It requires aggressive action to
>> control the binary size!
>>
>> The PR-induced bloat due to the NSH 'date' command configuration was
>> added between 9.0 and 9.1.  That was apps/ commit
>> 4adb83c754500cfebe4c24a498eb4139e3ff8866, dated April 7.  It is on
>> master but not in the releases/9.0 branch.  Apparently it just missed
>> the cut-off for 9.0 but is included in 9.1.
>>
>> The CONFIG_TIME_EXTENDED change is, I believe, pre-9.0 and so does not
>> have as strong an argument in the current context.  But I think any
>> size-related fixes that do not introduce other issues or cause loss of
>> functionality are good game for reversion.
>>
>> We need to stop the practice of changing settings by changing their
>> default values.  That has ramifications that are too extensive and too
>> unpredictable!  And we need to stop removing size reducing configuration
>> options without strong argument.  In the case of the
>> CONFIG_TIME_EXTENDED, the argument is that the default selection makes
>> the structure non-compliant with POSIX requirements.  That is a
>> reasonable argument.  There is no good argument of any kind for the NSH
>> 'date' command change, however. That change should certainly be removed.
>>
> Ok let's go ahead and plan to do an RC1. What I ask is that people really
> try to get some testing in. So we can address this prior to cutting
> releases. That 9.1 branch that this was made off of has been static besides
> the release notes for almost 10 days. It took calling a vote to find this
> issue.  I do appreciate the testing that people have done!
>
> Can we plan to cut RC1 on Friday or do people want to wait longer? After
> Monday I'll be likely somewhat unavailable for a few days so I may be
> slower to respond to moving the release process forward.
>
> --Brennan
>
I created the PR #307 to restore the behavior to the same as the 9.0 
release.  This should eliminate the size increase noted by Alan and Brennan.

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 10:56 AM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>
> My concern is that if we sweep things under the carpet now and continue
> with the 9.1 eyes shut as if there is nothing wrong, we will continue to
> degrade the OS footprint over time.   It requires aggressive action to
> control the binary size!
>
> The PR-induced bloat due to the NSH 'date' command configuration was
> added between 9.0 and 9.1.  That was apps/ commit
> 4adb83c754500cfebe4c24a498eb4139e3ff8866, dated April 7.  It is on
> master but not in the releases/9.0 branch.  Apparently it just missed
> the cut-off for 9.0 but is included in 9.1.
>
> The CONFIG_TIME_EXTENDED change is, I believe, pre-9.0 and so does not
> have as strong an argument in the current context.  But I think any
> size-related fixes that do not introduce other issues or cause loss of
> functionality are good game for reversion.
>
> We need to stop the practice of changing settings by changing their
> default values.  That has ramifications that are too extensive and too
> unpredictable!  And we need to stop removing size reducing configuration
> options without strong argument.  In the case of the
> CONFIG_TIME_EXTENDED, the argument is that the default selection makes
> the structure non-compliant with POSIX requirements.  That is a
> reasonable argument.  There is no good argument of any kind for the NSH
> 'date' command change, however. That change should certainly be removed.
>

Ok let's go ahead and plan to do an RC1. What I ask is that people really
try to get some testing in. So we can address this prior to cutting
releases. That 9.1 branch that this was made off of has been static besides
the release notes for almost 10 days. It took calling a vote to find this
issue.  I do appreciate the testing that people have done!

Can we plan to cut RC1 on Friday or do people want to wait longer? After
Monday I'll be likely somewhat unavailable for a few days so I may be
slower to respond to moving the release process forward.

--Brennan

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
> I am not sure if this was in the last release, but there is a secondary
> level change to date that the CONFIG_TIME_EXTENDED was removed and made
> permanently enabled. Things like CONFIG_TIME_EXTENDED were there to scale
> down for resource constrained configurations. I for one would like to
> preserve the "small" of NuttX. So some of these "clean up" PR's should have
> a little more eyes on them.

My concern is that if we sweep things under the carpet now and continue 
with the 9.1 eyes shut as if there is nothing wrong, we will continue to 
degrade the OS footprint over time.   It requires aggressive action to 
control the binary size!

The PR-induced bloat due to the NSH 'date' command configuration was 
added between 9.0 and 9.1.  That was apps/ commit 
4adb83c754500cfebe4c24a498eb4139e3ff8866, dated April 7.  It is on 
master but not in the releases/9.0 branch.  Apparently it just missed 
the cut-off for 9.0 but is included in 9.1.

The CONFIG_TIME_EXTENDED change is, I believe, pre-9.0 and so does not 
have as strong an argument in the current context.  But I think any 
size-related fixes that do not introduce other issues or cause loss of 
functionality are good game for reversion.

We need to stop the practice of changing settings by changing their 
default values.  That has ramifications that are too extensive and too 
unpredictable!  And we need to stop removing size reducing configuration 
options without strong argument.  In the case of the 
CONFIG_TIME_EXTENDED, the argument is that the default selection makes 
the structure non-compliant with POSIX requirements.  That is a 
reasonable argument.  There is no good argument of any kind for the NSH 
'date' command change, however. That change should certainly be removed.

RE: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by David Sidrane <Da...@nscdg.com>.
I am not sure if this was in the last release, but there is a secondary
level change to date that the CONFIG_TIME_EXTENDED was removed and made
permanently enabled. Things like CONFIG_TIME_EXTENDED were there to scale
down for resource constrained configurations. I for one would like to
preserve the "small" of NuttX. So some of these "clean up" PR's should have
a little more eyes on them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Nutt [mailto:spudaneco@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 6:26 AM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release


> Started looking and there are some changes in the diff in the
> generated config.h as can be seen here
> One change is the date command is no longer disabled by default.  This
> accounts for 2304 bytes, leaving only 800 byte change.
> I'm not sure if changing the default was expected, but I dont think
> this should block the release.

Changing the default is not the problem.  The problem is when the
default configuration value is changed, the all configurations effected
by that change in the default setting should be updated so that they are
not effected.  That is, so the net result is no change.  That was not
done and that is an error.

In this case, the NSH 'date' command used to default to 'disabled'
UNLESS an RTC was supported, then the default is 'enabled'.  There error
is, that that the 'date' command should have also been explicitly
disabled in ALL NSH configurations that do not have the RTC enabled.

That has a negative user impact and would think that correcting that is
more important than meeting an artificial release deadline.

> The TLS changes are harder for me to judge and the netdb change I
> think just changes ram usage.

I don't believe that the TLS changes added any significant size. It
replaces one small, simple implementation with another small, simple
implementation.  It is hard to envision how this would cause any
noticeable size increase.  But perhaps.

Another thing that I noted in Alin's configuration comparison is that
the variadic version of the ioctl() interface is no longer optional.
That I expect will add a couple hundred bytes to the size of every
configuration.

The main cause of the size increase is the default 'date' command
setting.  Not only does that enabled the NSH data command but draws all
of the time computation logic into the build.  This will probably break
many of the more resource constrained configurations.

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
> Started looking and there are some changes in the diff in the
> generated config.h as can be seen here
> One change is the date command is no longer disabled by default.  This
> accounts for 2304 bytes, leaving only 800 byte change.
> I'm not sure if changing the default was expected, but I dont think
> this should block the release.

Changing the default is not the problem.  The problem is when the 
default configuration value is changed, the all configurations effected 
by that change in the default setting should be updated so that they are 
not effected.  That is, so the net result is no change.  That was not 
done and that is an error.

In this case, the NSH 'date' command used to default to 'disabled' 
UNLESS an RTC was supported, then the default is 'enabled'.  There error 
is, that that the 'date' command should have also been explicitly 
disabled in ALL NSH configurations that do not have the RTC enabled.

That has a negative user impact and would think that correcting that is 
more important than meeting an artificial release deadline.

> The TLS changes are harder for me to judge and the netdb change I
> think just changes ram usage.

I don't believe that the TLS changes added any significant size. It 
replaces one small, simple implementation with another small, simple 
implementation.  It is hard to envision how this would cause any 
noticeable size increase.  But perhaps.

Another thing that I noted in Alin's configuration comparison is that 
the variadic version of the ioctl() interface is no longer optional.  
That I expect will add a couple hundred bytes to the size of every 
configuration.

The main cause of the size increase is the default 'date' command 
setting.  Not only does that enabled the NSH data command but draws all 
of the time computation logic into the build.  This will probably break 
many of the more resource constrained configurations.

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>.
Greg and Alan,
Started looking and there are some changes in the diff in the
generated config.h as can be seen here
One change is the date command is no longer disabled by default.  This
accounts for 2304 bytes, leaving only 800 byte change.
I'm not sure if changing the default was expected, but I dont think
this should block the release.
The TLS changes are harder for me to judge and the netdb change I
think just changes ram usage.  I can dig more, if you think it is
necessary, I agree that we should keep and eye on the size though. I
had some thoughts on keeping the build artifacts around so we could
track and test things easier (hard to go back in time with both repos
changing).

9.1.0
   text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
  71731        104       2476      74311      12247    ./9.1/nuttx

9.1.0 (with date disabled)
   text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
  69427        104       2476      72007      11947    nuttx


--- /home/bashton/nuttx/apache/sizetest/9.0/config.h
+++ /home/bashton/nuttx/apache/sizetest/9.1/config.h
@@ -135,7 +135,6 @@
 #define CONFIG_TASK_NAME_SIZE 31
 #define CONFIG_MAX_TASKS 16
 #define CONFIG_SCHED_WAITPID 1
-#define CONFIG_NPTHREAD_KEYS 4
 #define CONFIG_PTHREAD_MUTEX_ROBUST 1
 #define CONFIG_DEV_CONSOLE 1
 #define CONFIG_SDCLONE_DISABLE 1
@@ -196,15 +195,14 @@
 #define CONFIG_POSIX_SPAWN_PROXY_STACKSIZE 1024
 #define CONFIG_TASK_SPAWN_DEFAULT_STACKSIZE 2048
 #define CONFIG_LIB_HOSTNAME ""
-#define CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_TLS 1
-#define CONFIG_NETDB_BUFSIZE 128
+#define CONFIG_TLS_NELEM 4
+#define CONFIG_NETDB_BUFSIZE 256
 #define CONFIG_NETDB_MAX_IPADDR 1
-#define CONFIG_LIBC_IOCTL_VARIADIC 1
 #define CONFIG_LIB_SENDFILE_BUFSIZE 512
 #define CONFIG_BUILTIN 1
 #define CONFIG_HAVE_CXX 1
 #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO 1
-#define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PROGNAME hello
+#define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PROGNAME "hello"
 #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_PRIORITY 100
 #define CONFIG_EXAMPLES_HELLO_STACKSIZE 2048
 #define CONFIG_NSH_LIBRARY 1
@@ -214,7 +212,6 @@
 #define CONFIG_NSH_MAXARGUMENTS 7
 #define CONFIG_NSH_NESTDEPTH 3
 #define CONFIG_NSH_BUILTIN_APPS 1
-#define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_DATE 1
 #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_LOSMART 1
 #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_PRINTF 1
 #define CONFIG_NSH_DISABLE_TRUNCATE 1
@@ -227,7 +224,7 @@
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH 1
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PRIORITY 100
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_STACKSIZE 2048
-#define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PROGNAME nsh
+#define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_PROGNAME "nsh"
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH_CXXINITIALIZE 1
 #define CONFIG_READLINE_HAVE_EXTMATCH 1
 #define CONFIG_SYSTEM_READLINE 1

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:17 PM Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/23/2020 6:59 PM, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> >
> >> I compared it to release 9.0 and noticed it increased about 3 KiB of
> >> Flash usage, but I didn't check further to see what happened.
> >>
> >> NuttX 9.0
> >>
> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    68624        104       2496      71224      11638    nuttx
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.0.0
> >> nsh> free
> >>               total       used       free    largest
> >> Umem:       192976       7536     185440     125248
> >> nsh>
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttX 9.1 RC0
> >>
> >> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    71732        104       2476      74312      12248    nuttx
> >>
> >>
> >> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.1.0
> >> nsh> free
> >>               total       used       free    largest
> >> Umem:       192992       7536     185456     125264
> >> nsh>
> >
> > This might indicate a significant problem.  One possible explanation
> > might be that a new configuration option enables logic by default that
> > it should not.  Almost any explanation you can think of suggests a
> > problem.
>
> Can you look into this Alan?  I would think that an unexplained 3Kb size
> increase in such a trivial configuration would warrant a -1 vote.
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
On 6/23/2020 6:59 PM, Gregory Nutt wrote:
>
>> I compared it to release 9.0 and noticed it increased about 3 KiB of
>> Flash usage, but I didn't check further to see what happened.
>>
>> NuttX 9.0
>>
>> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
>>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
>>    68624        104       2496      71224      11638    nuttx
>>
>>
>> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.0.0
>> nsh> free
>>               total       used       free    largest
>> Umem:       192976       7536     185440     125248
>> nsh>
>>
>>
>> NuttX 9.1 RC0
>>
>> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
>>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
>>    71732        104       2476      74312      12248    nuttx
>>
>>
>> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.1.0
>> nsh> free
>>               total       used       free    largest
>> Umem:       192992       7536     185456     125264
>> nsh>
>
> This might indicate a significant problem.  One possible explanation 
> might be that a new configuration option enables logic by default that 
> it should not.  Almost any explanation you can think of suggests a 
> problem.

Can you look into this Alan?  I would think that an unexplained 3Kb size 
increase in such a trivial configuration would warrant a -1 vote.

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
> I compared it to release 9.0 and noticed it increased about 3 KiB of
> Flash usage, but I didn't check further to see what happened.
>
> NuttX 9.0
>
> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
>     text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
>    68624	    104	   2496	  71224	  11638	nuttx
>
>
> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.0.0
> nsh> free
>               total       used       free    largest
> Umem:       192976       7536     185440     125248
> nsh>
>
>
> NuttX 9.1 RC0
>
> $ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
>     text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
>    71732	    104	   2476	  74312	  12248	nuttx
>
>
> NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.1.0
> nsh> free
>               total       used       free    largest
> Umem:       192992       7536     185456     125264
> nsh>
>   

This might indicate a significant problem.  One possible explanation 
might be that a new configuration option enables logic by default that 
it should not.  Almost any explanation you can think of suggests a problem.

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Disruptive Solutions <di...@gmail.com>.
+1

Op wo 24 jun. 2020 02:40 schreef Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>:

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:36 PM Brennan Ashton
> <ba...@brennanashton.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:35 PM Brennan Ashton
> > <ba...@brennanashton.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:31 PM Justin Mclean <
> justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I’ve not done a full check (which I will do) but I would be -1 on
> this release as it looks like it’s been signed with an expired key:
> > > >
> > > > gpg: Good signature from "Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>"
> [expired]
> > > > gpg: Note: This key has expired!
> > > >
> > > > It's also a good idea to sign with an “@apache.org” email address.
> > > This key is not expired and has been signed by my apache.org email
> > > address as well:
> > >
> https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?search=0x3554D78458CEB6954B020E12E1B6E30DB05D6280&fingerprint=on&op=index
> > > This is also indicated here:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/nuttx/KEYS
> > >
> > > --Brennan
> >
> > Hmm I take that back about the KEYS file.  I must have messed up my
> > SVN foo, because I certainly updated my local copy of that file...
>
> Sorry for all the emails... Wrong link, the KEYS file in dev is correct.
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nuttx/KEYS
> If you can let me know what is wrong here I will be happy to fix it,
> but this seems correct to me.
>
> --Brennan
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:36 PM Brennan Ashton
<ba...@brennanashton.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:35 PM Brennan Ashton
> <ba...@brennanashton.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:31 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I’ve not done a full check (which I will do) but I would be -1 on this release as it looks like it’s been signed with an expired key:
> > >
> > > gpg: Good signature from "Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>" [expired]
> > > gpg: Note: This key has expired!
> > >
> > > It's also a good idea to sign with an “@apache.org” email address.
> > This key is not expired and has been signed by my apache.org email
> > address as well:
> > https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?search=0x3554D78458CEB6954B020E12E1B6E30DB05D6280&fingerprint=on&op=index
> > This is also indicated here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/nuttx/KEYS
> >
> > --Brennan
>
> Hmm I take that back about the KEYS file.  I must have messed up my
> SVN foo, because I certainly updated my local copy of that file...

Sorry for all the emails... Wrong link, the KEYS file in dev is correct.
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nuttx/KEYS
If you can let me know what is wrong here I will be happy to fix it,
but this seems correct to me.

--Brennan

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:35 PM Brennan Ashton
<ba...@brennanashton.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:31 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I’ve not done a full check (which I will do) but I would be -1 on this release as it looks like it’s been signed with an expired key:
> >
> > gpg: Good signature from "Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>" [expired]
> > gpg: Note: This key has expired!
> >
> > It's also a good idea to sign with an “@apache.org” email address.
> This key is not expired and has been signed by my apache.org email
> address as well:
> https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?search=0x3554D78458CEB6954B020E12E1B6E30DB05D6280&fingerprint=on&op=index
> This is also indicated here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/nuttx/KEYS
>
> --Brennan

Hmm I take that back about the KEYS file.  I must have messed up my
SVN foo, because I certainly updated my local copy of that file...

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,

> This key is not expired and has been signed by my apache.org email address as well

Thanks for that I must of had an old cached key.

Setting your expiry dates to the near future may not be a good idea as I seem to recall releases with expired key were removed from the mirrors at one point. I ‘m not sure how often it checks or if that is still the case.


Thanks,
Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:31 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I’ve not done a full check (which I will do) but I would be -1 on this release as it looks like it’s been signed with an expired key:
>
> gpg: Good signature from "Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>" [expired]
> gpg: Note: This key has expired!
>
> It's also a good idea to sign with an “@apache.org” email address.
This key is not expired and has been signed by my apache.org email
address as well:
https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?search=0x3554D78458CEB6954B020E12E1B6E30DB05D6280&fingerprint=on&op=index
This is also indicated here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/nuttx/KEYS

--Brennan

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,

I’ve not done a full check (which I will do) but I would be -1 on this release as it looks like it’s been signed with an expired key:

gpg: Good signature from "Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>" [expired]
gpg: Note: This key has expired!

It's also a good idea to sign with an “@apache.org” email address.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Alan Carvalho de Assis <ac...@gmail.com>.
Hi Brennan,

I did a basic test on STM32F4Discovery board compiling the "nsh" and
everything worked fine (see below).

My VOTE: +1


I compared it to release 9.0 and noticed it increased about 3 KiB of
Flash usage, but I didn't check further to see what happened.

NuttX 9.0

$ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
   text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
  68624	    104	   2496	  71224	  11638	nuttx


NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.0.0
nsh> free
             total       used       free    largest
Umem:       192976       7536     185440     125248
nsh>


NuttX 9.1 RC0

$ arm-none-eabi-size nuttx
   text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
  71732	    104	   2476	  74312	  12248	nuttx


NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-9.1.0
nsh> free
             total       used       free    largest
Umem:       192992       7536     185456     125264
nsh>


Good work guys!

BR,

Alan

On 6/23/20, Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
> Apache NuttX (Incubating) 9.1.0 has been staged under [1] and it's time to
> vote
> on accepting it for release. If approved we will seek final release
> approval
> from the IPMC. Voting will be open for 72hr.
>
> Because this project targets embedded systems there is more complexity
> involved
> in the build process.  We have tried to make some improvements around this
> for
> new people to the project and are in the process of updating our sites and
> wiki
> to simplify the getting started process.
> Two starting points:
>  * README.txt -- This is found in the Apache NuttX source and is extensive.
>  * Unofficial NuttX Companion -- Located at [3], this is a currently
> unofficial
>    opinionated guide maintained by some of the project committers.
>
>
> A minimum of 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 than binding -1
> are required to pass.
>
> The Apache requirements for approving a release can be found here [4]
> "Before voting +1 [P]PMC members are required to download the signed
> source code package,
> compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own
> platform, along
> with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF
> policy on releases."
>
> A document to walk through some of this process has been published on
> our project wiki
> and can be found here [5].  I did try to walk through this document,
> but please comment
> if you find anything not clear.
>
> [ ] +1 accept (indicate what you validated - e.g. performed the non-RM
> items in [5])
> [ ] -1 reject (explanation required)
>
> Thank you all,
> Brennan Ashton
>
> SCM Information:
>   Release tag: releases/9.1.0-RC0
>   Hash for the release incubating-nuttx tag:
> 5d5e6f7192d24a6241aa3e22c729a85eda7afe2d
>   Hash for the release incubating-nuttx-apps tag:
> 6fd57ba0712a78b20bd3ce49022924810a5552c7
>
> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nuttx/9.1.0-RC0/
> [2]
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/nuttx-9.1.0-RC0/ReleaseNotes
> [3] https://nuttx-companion.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
> [4] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> [5]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/Validating+a+staged+Release
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Abdelatif Guettouche <ab...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
+1, I checked:
- Incubating in name
- Signature and hash OK
- LICENSE, DISCLAIMER and NOTICE exist
- Build from source.


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:37 AM Brennan Ashton
<ba...@brennanashton.com> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> Apache NuttX (Incubating) 9.1.0 has been staged under [1] and it's time to vote
> on accepting it for release. If approved we will seek final release approval
> from the IPMC. Voting will be open for 72hr.
>
> Because this project targets embedded systems there is more complexity involved
> in the build process.  We have tried to make some improvements around this for
> new people to the project and are in the process of updating our sites and wiki
> to simplify the getting started process.
> Two starting points:
>  * README.txt -- This is found in the Apache NuttX source and is extensive.
>  * Unofficial NuttX Companion -- Located at [3], this is a currently unofficial
>    opinionated guide maintained by some of the project committers.
>
>
> A minimum of 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 than binding -1
> are required to pass.
>
> The Apache requirements for approving a release can be found here [4]
> "Before voting +1 [P]PMC members are required to download the signed
> source code package,
> compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own
> platform, along
> with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF
> policy on releases."
>
> A document to walk through some of this process has been published on
> our project wiki
> and can be found here [5].  I did try to walk through this document,
> but please comment
> if you find anything not clear.
>
> [ ] +1 accept (indicate what you validated - e.g. performed the non-RM
> items in [5])
> [ ] -1 reject (explanation required)
>
> Thank you all,
> Brennan Ashton
>
> SCM Information:
>   Release tag: releases/9.1.0-RC0
>   Hash for the release incubating-nuttx tag:
> 5d5e6f7192d24a6241aa3e22c729a85eda7afe2d
>   Hash for the release incubating-nuttx-apps tag:
> 6fd57ba0712a78b20bd3ce49022924810a5552c7
>
> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nuttx/9.1.0-RC0/
> [2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/nuttx-9.1.0-RC0/ReleaseNotes
> [3] https://nuttx-companion.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
> [4] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> [5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/Validating+a+staged+Release

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,

> Does this mean that if you do not validate anything, you lose your right as a PPMC member to vote?

No, merit once gained isn’t lost, but it could be a little embarrassing if a critical issue is found after the release has been made. In that case another release is needed to correct it, it may not be a big deal, but it may cause some users inconvenience. The aim if for each release to be better than the last one. I would recommend that everyone voting does a complete check.

Re [DISCUSS] it’s a good idea to have one but it’s not required by ASF policy. Having a discuss thread may just means there’s a few less RC’s and less conversation in the VOTE thread.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
On 6/23/2020 12:36 AM, Brennan Ashton wrote:
> Hello all,
> Apache NuttX (Incubating) 9.1.0 has been staged under [1] and it's time to vote
> on accepting it for release. If approved we will seek final release approval
> from the IPMC. Voting will be open for 72hr.
>
> Because this project targets embedded systems there is more complexity involved
> in the build process.  We have tried to make some improvements around this for
> new people to the project and are in the process of updating our sites and wiki
> to simplify the getting started process.
> Two starting points:
>   * README.txt -- This is found in the Apache NuttX source and is extensive.
>   * Unofficial NuttX Companion -- Located at [3], this is a currently unofficial
>     opinionated guide maintained by some of the project committers.
>
>
> A minimum of 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 than binding -1
> are required to pass.
>
> The Apache requirements for approving a release can be found here [4]
> "Before voting +1 [P]PMC members are required to download the signed
> source code package,
> compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own
> platform, along
> with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF
> policy on releases."
>
> A document to walk through some of this process has been published on
> our project wiki
> and can be found here [5].  I did try to walk through this document,
> but please comment
> if you find anything not clear.
>
> [ ] +1 accept (indicate what you validated - e.g. performed the non-RM
> items in [5])
> [ ] -1 reject (explanation required)
>
> Thank you all,
> Brennan Ashton
>
> SCM Information:
>    Release tag: releases/9.1.0-RC0
>    Hash for the release incubating-nuttx tag:
> 5d5e6f7192d24a6241aa3e22c729a85eda7afe2d
>    Hash for the release incubating-nuttx-apps tag:
> 6fd57ba0712a78b20bd3ce49022924810a5552c7
>
> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nuttx/9.1.0-RC0/
> [2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/nuttx-9.1.0-RC0/ReleaseNotes
> [3] https://nuttx-companion.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
> [4] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> [5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/Validating+a+staged+Release

Does this mean that if you do not validate anything, you lose your right 
as a PPMC member to vote?

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by "Ishikawa, Masayuki (SHES)" <Ma...@sony.com>.
I forgot to see the PR.
Thanks for the information. It works.
I've just merged to the master.

Masayuki
​
________________________________
From: Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 14:10
To: Ishikawa, Masayuki (SHES) <Ma...@sony.com>; dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release


Here is the fix we sent two days ago:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx-apps/pull/303





From: Ishikawa, Masayuki (SHES) <Ma...@sony.com>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:13 AM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org; Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release



Hi, Xiang and all,



-1



I've been checking the nuttx-9.1.0-RC0 with qemu and several boards

and found that ELF loading do​es not work. (nuttx-9.0.0 was OK but

the latest master branch has the same issue)



And finally, I noticed that apps/sysmtab_apps.c has no symbols.



Xiang, do you notice this issue?

Perhaps, something is wrong with the build system.



Thanks,

Masayuki



________________________________

From: Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 15:36
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org<ma...@nuttx.apache.org> <de...@nuttx.apache.org>>
Subject: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release



Hello all,
Apache NuttX (Incubating) 9.1.0 has been staged under [1] and it's time to vote
on accepting it for release. If approved we will seek final release approval
from the IPMC. Voting will be open for 72hr.

Because this project targets embedded systems there is more complexity involved
in the build process.  We have tried to make some improvements around this for
new people to the project and are in the process of updating our sites and wiki
to simplify the getting started process.
Two starting points:
 * README.txt -- This is found in the Apache NuttX source and is extensive.
 * Unofficial NuttX Companion -- Located at [3], this is a currently unofficial
   opinionated guide maintained by some of the project committers.


A minimum of 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 than binding -1
are required to pass.

The Apache requirements for approving a release can be found here [4]
"Before voting +1 [P]PMC members are required to download the signed
source code package,
compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own
platform, along
with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF
policy on releases."

A document to walk through some of this process has been published on
our project wiki
and can be found here [5].  I did try to walk through this document,
but please comment
if you find anything not clear.

[ ] +1 accept (indicate what you validated - e.g. performed the non-RM
items in [5])
[ ] -1 reject (explanation required)

Thank you all,
Brennan Ashton

SCM Information:
  Release tag: releases/9.1.0-RC0
  Hash for the release incubating-nuttx tag:
5d5e6f7192d24a6241aa3e22c729a85eda7afe2d
  Hash for the release incubating-nuttx-apps tag:
6fd57ba0712a78b20bd3ce49022924810a5552c7

[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nuttx/9.1.0-RC0/
[2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/nuttx-9.1.0-RC0/ReleaseNotes
[3] https://nuttx-companion.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
[4] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
[5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/Validating+a+staged+Release

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 5:40 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> HI,
>
> > I confirmed that the latest releases/9.1 branch fixes the problems.
>
> A vote need to be on a static code base / a release artefact not what is
> in a branch. It can’t change as the hashes and signatures would be
> different for starters.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin



Yes sorry Justin if it was not clear in an earlier email in the thread, we
are going to create an RC1.  Just want to get as much testing on this RC as
possible before we do that.

--Brennan

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Nathan Hartman <ha...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:35 AM Jerpelea, Alin <Al...@sony.com>
wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> I can confirm that the latest branch looks good
> We should create RC1 wih the fixes included to start the testing and
> voting for RC1


What about the bug report about mm_realloc() reported by a user on 24 Jun:

https://lists.apache.org/x/thread.html/rbb1f85b5f2dba9ee221548fcc5f99d49ef55522c487b99c1549c3a52@%3Cdev.nuttx.apache.org%3E

Is it worth to apply that fix and backport to RC1?

Nathan

Sv: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by "Jerpelea, Alin" <Al...@sony.com>.
Hi Justin,

I can confirm that the latest branch looks good
We should create RC1 wih the fixes included to start the testing and voting for RC1

Regards
Alin

________________________________
Från: Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
Skickat: den 26 juni 2020 14:40
Till: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
Ämne: Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

HI,

> I confirmed that the latest releases/9.1 branch fixes the problems.

A vote need to be on a static code base / a release artefact not what is in a branch. It can’t change as the hashes and signatures would be different for starters.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,

> I confirmed that the latest releases/9.1 branch fixes the problems.

A vote need to be on a static code base / a release artefact not what is in a branch. It can’t change as the hashes and signatures would be different for starters.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by "Ishikawa, Masayuki (SHES)" <Ma...@sony.com>.
+1

I confirmed that the latest releases/9.1 branch fixes the problems.

Masayuki

________________________________
From: Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 14:17
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
Cc: Ishikawa, Masayuki (SHES) <Ma...@sony.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here is the fix we sent two days ago:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx-apps/pull/303
>
Backports PRs are available for both this and the RISCV elf bug

https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1306
https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx-apps/pull/309

--Brennan

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here is the fix we sent two days ago:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx-apps/pull/303
>
Backports PRs are available for both this and the RISCV elf bug

https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/1306
https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx-apps/pull/309

--Brennan

RE: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>.
Here is the fix we sent two days ago:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx-apps/pull/303

 

 

From: Ishikawa, Masayuki (SHES) <Ma...@sony.com> 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:13 AM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org; Xiang Xiao <xi...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

 

Hi, Xiang and all,

 

-1

 

I've been checking the nuttx-9.1.0-RC0 with qemu and several boards

and found that ELF loading do​es not work. (nuttx-9.0.0 was OK but

the latest master branch has the same issue)

 

And finally, I noticed that apps/sysmtab_apps.c has no symbols.

 

Xiang, do you notice this issue? 

Perhaps, something is wrong with the build system.

 

Thanks,

Masayuki

 

  _____  

From: Brennan Ashton <bashton@brennanashton.com <ma...@brennanashton.com> >
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 15:36
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <ma...@nuttx.apache.org>  <dev@nuttx.apache.org <ma...@nuttx.apache.org> >
Subject: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release 

 

Hello all,
Apache NuttX (Incubating) 9.1.0 has been staged under [1] and it's time to vote
on accepting it for release. If approved we will seek final release approval
from the IPMC. Voting will be open for 72hr.

Because this project targets embedded systems there is more complexity involved
in the build process.  We have tried to make some improvements around this for
new people to the project and are in the process of updating our sites and wiki
to simplify the getting started process.
Two starting points:
 * README.txt -- This is found in the Apache NuttX source and is extensive.
 * Unofficial NuttX Companion -- Located at [3], this is a currently unofficial
   opinionated guide maintained by some of the project committers.


A minimum of 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 than binding -1
are required to pass.

The Apache requirements for approving a release can be found here [4]
"Before voting +1 [P]PMC members are required to download the signed
source code package,
compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own
platform, along
with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF
policy on releases."

A document to walk through some of this process has been published on
our project wiki
and can be found here [5].  I did try to walk through this document,
but please comment
if you find anything not clear.

[ ] +1 accept (indicate what you validated - e.g. performed the non-RM
items in [5])
[ ] -1 reject (explanation required)

Thank you all,
Brennan Ashton

SCM Information:
  Release tag: releases/9.1.0-RC0
  Hash for the release incubating-nuttx tag:
5d5e6f7192d24a6241aa3e22c729a85eda7afe2d
  Hash for the release incubating-nuttx-apps tag:
6fd57ba0712a78b20bd3ce49022924810a5552c7

[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nuttx/9.1.0-RC0/
[2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/nuttx-9.1.0-RC0/ReleaseNotes
[3] https://nuttx-companion.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
[4] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
[5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/Validating+a+staged+Release

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by "Ishikawa, Masayuki (SHES)" <Ma...@sony.com>.
Hi, Xiang and all,

-1

I've been checking the nuttx-9.1.0-RC0 with qemu and several boards
and found that ELF loading do​es not work. (nuttx-9.0.0 was OK but
the latest master branch has the same issue)

And finally, I noticed that apps/sysmtab_apps.c has no symbols.

Xiang, do you notice this issue?
Perhaps, something is wrong with the build system.

Thanks,
Masayuki

________________________________
From: Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 15:36
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <de...@nuttx.apache.org>
Subject: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Hello all,
Apache NuttX (Incubating) 9.1.0 has been staged under [1] and it's time to vote
on accepting it for release. If approved we will seek final release approval
from the IPMC. Voting will be open for 72hr.

Because this project targets embedded systems there is more complexity involved
in the build process.  We have tried to make some improvements around this for
new people to the project and are in the process of updating our sites and wiki
to simplify the getting started process.
Two starting points:
 * README.txt -- This is found in the Apache NuttX source and is extensive.
 * Unofficial NuttX Companion -- Located at [3], this is a currently unofficial
   opinionated guide maintained by some of the project committers.


A minimum of 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 than binding -1
are required to pass.

The Apache requirements for approving a release can be found here [4]
"Before voting +1 [P]PMC members are required to download the signed
source code package,
compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own
platform, along
with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF
policy on releases."

A document to walk through some of this process has been published on
our project wiki
and can be found here [5].  I did try to walk through this document,
but please comment
if you find anything not clear.

[ ] +1 accept (indicate what you validated - e.g. performed the non-RM
items in [5])
[ ] -1 reject (explanation required)

Thank you all,
Brennan Ashton

SCM Information:
  Release tag: releases/9.1.0-RC0
  Hash for the release incubating-nuttx tag:
5d5e6f7192d24a6241aa3e22c729a85eda7afe2d
  Hash for the release incubating-nuttx-apps tag:
6fd57ba0712a78b20bd3ce49022924810a5552c7

[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nuttx/9.1.0-RC0/
[2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/nuttx-9.1.0-RC0/ReleaseNotes
[3] https://nuttx-companion.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
[4] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
[5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/Validating+a+staged+Release

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>.
>
> In the past, I thought we decided that any [VOTE] phase must be preceded
> by a [DISCUSS] phase?
>

This email is basically boiler plate that is following the process that
Apache defines for the podling release process and is the same as what we
did for the last release. There is no obligation to vote, but if you do you
are certifying that you did the checks you said you did.

As for the discuss bit, I outlined a release timeline there were no
objections even in a follow-up reminder.bIf anyone objects to the release
they are welcome to -1 and we can cancel the vote. We kind of did that last
time which is why RC1 not RC0 passed and went to the IPMC for voting. I
don't see any reason for an additional discussion phase if we agreed to a
timeline, this process is already painfully slow and has ample time to halt
the process in the case of bugs.

--Brennan

>

Re: [VOTE] Apache NuttX 9.1.0 (incubating) RC0 release

Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
On 6/23/2020 12:36 AM, Brennan Ashton wrote:
> Hello all,
> Apache NuttX (Incubating) 9.1.0 has been staged under [1] and it's time to vote
> on accepting it for release. If approved we will seek final release approval
> from the IPMC. Voting will be open for 72hr.
>
> Because this project targets embedded systems there is more complexity involved
> in the build process.  We have tried to make some improvements around this for
> new people to the project and are in the process of updating our sites and wiki
> to simplify the getting started process.
> Two starting points:
>   * README.txt -- This is found in the Apache NuttX source and is extensive.
>   * Unofficial NuttX Companion -- Located at [3], this is a currently unofficial
>     opinionated guide maintained by some of the project committers.
>
>
> A minimum of 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 than binding -1
> are required to pass.
>
> The Apache requirements for approving a release can be found here [4]
> "Before voting +1 [P]PMC members are required to download the signed
> source code package,
> compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own
> platform, along
> with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF
> policy on releases."
>
> A document to walk through some of this process has been published on
> our project wiki
> and can be found here [5].  I did try to walk through this document,
> but please comment
> if you find anything not clear.
>
> [ ] +1 accept (indicate what you validated - e.g. performed the non-RM
> items in [5])
> [ ] -1 reject (explanation required)
>
> Thank you all,
> Brennan Ashton
>
> SCM Information:
>    Release tag: releases/9.1.0-RC0
>    Hash for the release incubating-nuttx tag:
> 5d5e6f7192d24a6241aa3e22c729a85eda7afe2d
>    Hash for the release incubating-nuttx-apps tag:
> 6fd57ba0712a78b20bd3ce49022924810a5552c7
>
> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nuttx/9.1.0-RC0/
> [2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/nuttx-9.1.0-RC0/ReleaseNotes
> [3] https://nuttx-companion.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
> [4] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> [5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/Validating+a+staged+Release

In the past, I thought we decided that any [VOTE] phase must be preceded 
by a [DISCUSS] phase?