Should CHDK autobuild support 'ALPHA' versions?

philmoz

3357

« on: 23 / October / 2011, 02:44:55 »

Advertisements

With the new makefile approach for CHDK it would now be easy to have an 'ALPHA' status for new cameras/firmware versions in the autobuild.

By placing 'ALPHA' in the status column in the camera_list.csv file the system would create a version appropriately labelled (as it does now for 'BETA' versions).

CHDK-DE is using this and includes a number of camera and firmware versions that aren't available in CHDK.

What do people think about including ALPHA versions in CHDK?

Phil.

Logged

CHDK ports:
sx30is (1.00c, 1.00h, 1.00l, 1.00n & 1.00p)
g12 (1.00c, 1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
sx130is (1.01d & 1.01f)
ixus310hs (1.00a & 1.01a)
sx40hs (1.00d, 1.00g & 1.00i)
g1x (1.00e, 1.00f & 1.00g)
g5x (1.00c, 1.01a, 1.01b)
g7x2 (1.01a, 1.01b, 1.10b)

msl

1276
A720 IS, SX220 HS 1.01a

Re: Should CHDK autobuild support 'ALPHA' versions?

« Reply #1 on: 23 / October / 2011, 04:17:36 »

With it we have had good experiences in CHDK-DE.

I think, it's better we provide an ALPHA version than we lose a porting. The user knows, this is a very early version. But he also sees what is possible.

We have some discontinued portings, e.g. Ixus105, Ixus130, SX210. Pity about this work.

msl

Logged

CHDK-DE: CHDK-DE links

waterwingz

12110

Re: Should CHDK autobuild support 'ALPHA' versions?

« Reply #2 on: 23 / October / 2011, 12:13:08 »

@philmoz : as you know, I'm in favor of the idea. It gives a developer somewhere safe to put things during the porting process without fear of people trying to use it as a functional port. And it does not result in a mad scramble later on when somebody tries to revive the code (remembering our efforts for the SD980 and A495).

Would you change the script so that ALPHA code is not build during the autobuild process ?

Logged

Ported : A1200 SD940 G10 Powershot N G16

reyalp

13506

Re: Should CHDK autobuild support 'ALPHA' versions?

« Reply #3 on: 23 / October / 2011, 22:24:21 »

I'm for it, the only reason I didn't want to do this before was the hassle of dealing with all the different copy/build lines.

Logged

Don't forget what the H stands for.

zeno

Re: Should CHDK autobuild support 'ALPHA' versions?

« Reply #4 on: 24 / October / 2011, 04:46:17 »

Sounds like a good idea to me, but I'd like some advice about whether ACID should show alpha versions. If it did, then I think I should make sure there's a prominent warning that the build is ALPHA, but perhaps it would be safer not to show them.

ACID locates the download zips by scanning the html of the download pages for CHDK and CHDK-DE, so it would be helpful if I could know about any changes in syntax before they become live (that way ACID won't suddenly stop working).

On a related point, I keep the ACID tables up-to-date by running a daily program to check if there are new CHDK and CHDK-DE builds - it compares the tables ACID uses with the html on the two download sites. That program too will need modification of the syntax of the html changes significantly.

Logged

A570, S100, Ixus 127
Author of ASSIST, STICK, WASP, ACID, SDMInst, LICKS, WICKS, MacBoot, UBDB, CFGEdit