[Nut-upsdev] about the 2.0.5 release

[Peter Selinger]

Gentlemen,

I just committed a last-minute change to the Testing branch. We had
previously discussed that the "-x generic" option was confusing to
users, because it wasn't really a subdriver for generic devices, but
only an information collecting option. In light of the fact that 2.0.5
will be the first release containing this option (and therefore there
is no real issue of backward compatibility), I have renamed it to '-x
explore', which I hope is less confusing. Please let me know if there
are any objections to this, as -r625:626 would be easy to reverse.

Also, I have written something for the NEWS and UPGRADING files.
Please amend as necessary.

It wasn't actually necessary to look at a 'diff' of the full sources;
instead, I just looked at a 'diff' of the ChangeLogs.  If we follow
best practices for ChangeLogs (when merging, merge the ChangeLog
entries, rather than writing a new ChangeLog entry), then it should in
fact be very easy to see the differences between any two versions by
diffing the corresponding ChangeLogs.

While I was going through the ChangeLog, I noticed a number of devices
mentioned there that were not mentioned in data/driver.list. I have
tenatively added these devices to data/driver.list (tentatively
because I am not sure if they are actually supported, or if they are
only trying to be supported). The devices were:

"Cyber Power Systems"  "725SL" ""      "genericups upstype=22"
"Cyber Power Systems"  "1200AVR"       ""      "cpsups (experimental)"
"Tripp-Lite"   "SMART550USB"   "USB"   "tripplite_usb"

Could the corresponding maintainers please check that this is correct
(particularly, the "genericups upstype=22" setting, Arnaud?)

-- Peter



Charles Lepple wrote:
> 
> On 12/18/06, Arnaud Quette <aquette.dev at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2006/12/18, Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>:
> > > On 12/18/06, Arnaud Quette <aquette.dev at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > - that the brief NEWS message fits everybody (analyzing the real diff
> > > > between the Testing+trunk backport and the last trunk backport over
> > > > Testing was a mess).
> > >
> > > I'll have to double-check myself, but I think that there were a number
> > > of additions and bugfixes to tripplite_usb, including support for more
> > > UPS models. Should we add this there, or do you want to keep NEWS
> > > short?
> >
> > if we mention the tripplite_usb changes, we'll have to do the same for
> > the others...
> > Though I would prefer the clean approach of referencing the changes,
> > keeping the NEWS simple would be a good option to release quickly
> > 2.0.5.
> 
> You're right. It's definitely less info than in the previous NEWS
> entries, but then again, there will always be those who will upgrade
> just because the version number is higher.
> 
> If there are no special upgrade instructions, we should probably
> mention that in UPGRADING (which is referenced by NEWS).
> 
> -- 
> - Charles Lepple
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nut-upsdev mailing list
> Nut-upsdev at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
>