[Nut-upsdev] new features on Testing branch (was: Belkin F6H375 not seen by nut 2.2.1)

Charles Lepple clepple at gmail.com
Sun Jan 13 16:28:06 UTC 2008

apparently I can't manage simple skills like changing a list address.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2008 9:45 AM
Subject: [Nut-upsuser] new features on Testing branch (was: Belkin
F6H375 not seen by nut 2.2.1)
To: "Alexander I. Gordeev" <lasaine at lvk.cs.msu.su>
Cc: nut-upsuser at lists.alioth.debian.org

[moving this thread to nut-upsdev]

On Jan 12, 2008 5:54 PM, Alexander I. Gordeev <lasaine at lvk.cs.msu.su> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:30:37 +0300, Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > when you figure this out, can we make sure that we know which
> > changesets would need to be back-ported to branches/Testing (since
> > that is where we would create version 2.2.2+, if needed)? Apologies in
> > advance, I do not know much about this particular driver.
> >
> Hmm, can we add new features to this branch or only bugfixes are allowed?
> There is only one new feature in the trunk, reconnect support. Everything
> else is code cleanup and bugfixing. I'd rather backport everything.

I'm cc:ing Arnaud, (Arjen, feel free to weigh in as well) but when a
driver is developed based on experimentation rather than a
well-defined protocol specification, I personally think that the
advantages of "releasing early and often" outweigh the disadvantages
of keeping the changes only in the trunk. It looks like the
megatec_usb driver in 2.2.0 and 2.2.1 does not support the Phoenixtec
protocol, but that shouldn't affect current users of megatec_usb.

Also, given that the reconnection feature has been somewhat tested in
other drivers, it is not as risky as introducing something completely

- Charles Lepple

More information about the Nut-upsdev mailing list