On 06-08-04 18:15 +0100, David Bisset wrote:
> OK I've taken a look at this and have the following suggestion...
> 
> a) Boards and software "chunks" need to be products.
> 	Boards so that we can then use components for the various parts to
> narrow the bugs down.
> 	Software chunks so we can do likewise.

I had come to the same conclusion by thinking about it a bit more.
That bodes well :-)

Thanx for the list. Looks about right.

Anyone else enthused enough to want admin rights on bugzilla? I know
how to add you now - I'll have forgotten next month - so ask now if you
want the ability to change fields and break/fix things. It's nice and
pointy-clicky.

> b) On the assumption that we can have different version styles per product
> (if not then we need to agree a common version style)

I think we can have any string we like for versions. I'm not sure what
effect that has on sorting/searching etc.
 	
> The version numbers for hardware are accumulative:
> 	0v1  refers to the PCB revision
> 	0v12 refers to the fit level on the PCB.
> 	0v12P2 refers to a particular build which then also includes a mod
> level and possibly an initial software level and a test level (eg its 	been
> tested with a particular revision of the XJTAG code).

OK - something like that seems plausible, but I see a few potential
difficulties. 

* It assumes no more than 9 fit options per board - which should be OK,
but there probably could be more in theory.

* We have already used 3 digits after the point for board numbering:
2.05, 2.07, 2.052 etc. Putting those numbers into the above scheme
would be confusing and not automatically sortable. We could have an
arbitrary mapping from those to shorter numbers but customers
like version numbers that correspond to their docs (and so do we if it
means bugs get filed under the right thing). B3 numbering is likely to
be more regular.

It might work better to use a version with some syntax in it to allow
for such things:
0.1-2-P2

Thinking about it - I think it makes most sense to put the P2
'release' info into the 'platform' field as that it what it means,
rather than trying to layer it into the version number. It does define
a 'platform' in the case of code running on the balloon. This could be
problematic when filing a bug about interaction with a machine on
another platform - but you can always only specify one platform, so
any 'interaction' bug will have to have some info in the text.

I'll see if there are bugzilla constraints on version numbering which
suggest one scheme might work better than another.

Anyone care to write a wiki page with the
existing PCB flavours and fit variants assigned to version numbers.
(for B2 and B3). I'm not sure who has the closest thing to a complete
overview of this. Possibly John, Chris or Dave.


Wookey
-- 
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK  Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/                 play: http://wookware.org/