• Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 98 subscribers
  • Views 275 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

IPC GatePeterson N

Clement FR
Genius 4750 points

Hello everyone, in particular TI people,

Here's a complaint :

You released along with IPC 3.00 a new Gate ti.sdo.ipc.gates.GatePetersonN
and it's NOT written anywhere on the release notes.

We check release notes for each new delivery to see if it's worth upgrading
so if new modules are not documented in release notes we'll have to manually check every release ?!

Regards,
Clement.

  • TI__Genius 17205 points

    Yep, we blew it.  That should have made the release notes.

    IPC auto-generates the "What's New" section of the release notes from our bug/enhancement database.  That particular new GatePetersonN enhancement was added to the product without an entry in the database - so it missed the release notes.  Our bad, sorry.

    FWIW, if you're _really_ curious, IPC development has moved to an external git repo, so everything's done in the clear.  You can follow along with every line of change, and even submit patches if you want, here:

        https://git.ti.com/ipc/ipcdev

    But following the release notes should be good enough.

    Chris

  • in reply to Chris Ring
    Genius 4750 points

    Chris,

    Thank you for acknowledging it.

    Great info about the git repo, I like the patches idea too.

    I've noticed that you also put the User Guide as a wiki entry and removed the PDF.

    Any comment on what motivated this decision (and the one behind the external, open, repo) ?
    Is it a move limited to IPC or part of a larger plan including SYS/BIOS ?

    If you can't disclose this kind of information, I'll understand.

    Clement

  • in reply to Clement FR
    TI__Genius 17205 points

    I'm generally encouraging more open source practices for TI software.  Most of our stuff has been "open source license friendly" for a long time, but we're still managing the content behind TI walls.  I don't really see a need for that, and would prefer to leverage the community more... at a minimum to enable more transparency, but I'm also optimistic that it'll evolve into a full feedback loop.

    I've been a big fan of the wiki since the beginning (was actually one of a rogue band of founders!), and for similar reasons as above, I think the community wants to see what we're doing with documentation, and ultimately may help improve and evolve them.  I want to get "docs that make sense" (probably not data sheets, for example) moved to the wiki.

    Finally, as for the 'larger plan', at least to me and the software spheres which I have influence, being more open _is_ part of our larger plan.  To date I've done similarly with Linux Utils and Framework Components, and more of the products I manage will be following.  I'm trying to lead by example and find/follow Best Practices, and am hopeful that others will follow.

    Thanks for the interest, and I hope that helps!

    Chris

  • in reply to Chris Ring
    Genius 4750 points

    Thanks for the info,

    it's certainly in the right direction.

    On the subject of user guides moved to the wiki it's great but my concern is that it's always nice to have it as a PDF for printing and for viewing it without an internet connection.

    It would be great to be able to create a PDF from the wiki pages.

    Clement