MiniMig model names.

[Belial6]

Now that we have real MiniMigs being produced, it strikes me that identifying which model we have could get really ugly really fast.  If things go well, we will see many different runs with ever increasing capabilities, from various different sources.

Given that, it seems prudent to come to an agreement on what the various models will be called so that if 10 years from now, I go on eBay to buy a classic MiniMig, I will know if I am getting a v1.1 produced by Xenepp, or something very different produced by Ppenex.

I would think that we could just use MiniMig v1.0, v1.1, etc. for anything that comes from Dennis himself.  He after all is the root of MiniMig, but something along the lines of (Producer-Version-Format-XAxis-YAxis) would be nice.

This would put the original Dennis model as (Dennis-100-Other-12-12).  This is just off the top of my head, so maybe something like a fixed number of digets would be better, so that we can get rid of the dashes or whatnot.    Obviously this couldn't be enforced, but I don't see why anyone would make an effort to buck a standard.

[amigadave]

I would prefer to see the naming remain v1.0 for the original designed by Dennis, Minimig v1.1 for the recent revision done by Dennis for Xenepp, Minimig v1.2 for the proposed BGA FPGA that is to be produced.  When more drastic changes from the original design are produced, thought could be given to moving to v2.0 and beyond.

This will keep the name short and consistent until it is expanded to something that no longer could be considered "Mini", at which point an entirely different name may be chosen.

So, my vote is to stay with the name "Minimig v1.x, v2.x" etc., of even "Minimig AGA" if/when it is created.

My two cents

[Belial6]

Who gets the higher number it two people are working on different updates?  So, if I am working on a board design that includes onboard ethernet, and you are working on a board that has a clockport, which of us uses the name 'MiniMig v1.3'?

I guess I am kind of looking at it like Linux distros.  You have the kernel that is Linux, but if I put my own distro together, I give it a deferent name.  Can you imagine what a problem we would have if every distribution just incremented a number from the last one they saw?

Now, I'm not suggesting that MiniMig will become as influential as Linux, but Trovolds didn't expect Linux to become as influential as Linux.  And even if we only (only?) end up with 20 different people producing boards, the ability to identify what is what becomes very difficult very quickly.

Case in point.  If I produce shoddy boards that only work half the time at best, but Xenepp produces boards that are rock solid, it would be very helpful to someone in 2012, trying to buy a MiniMig, to know that the MiniMig v1.1 on eBay is one of those crappy Belial6 models so that they could bid accordingly.

I would really hate to see MiniMig turn out like all those applications where the original coders didn't think comments were necessary.  The naming isn't about today.  It is about 5 or 10 years from now.

[freqmax]

I would suggest to use Creator-Pcb version-API version. And that the versioning format is explicitly written out.
Possible also which Dennis version it's based upon.

API version is for when core files will have to be run in the Webpack Place & Route. NetBSD use a letter to indicate version, ie like v1.1Q.

The MCU loader should also only look for core (.bit) files that are compatible with the board. So it's not enough to put that information on the silkscreen. Software must also be able to use this electronicly.

[Belial6]

Is the API only for the PCB layout software during design time, or is it something that would need to me used during run time?

What do you think about a fixed number of digets?  It would make sorting and such easier.  It would also make any kind of software use easier to deal with.

I would think the board dimensions/format would be useful, although really, as long as there is a way for multiple people to create multiple revisions, and each had it's own unique ID,  everything else could be stored external to the silkscreen.

What about CCCCCCVVVV???

CCCCCC = 6 digit creator code
VVVV = 4 digit version number
= 6 digits for other stuff?

This would make the version codes an even 16 characters.

I am curious as to how you would think the MCU loader should identify valid .bit files.  Where would you store the compatibility table?  I would think that there could be new cores written that work with older boards, but there could also be new boards created that work with older cores.  I would think that if the MCU was going to limit what core files could be loaded, it would need to store the compatibility chart in an external text file so that it could be easily updated.

[downix]

We could just sign them.....

[Belial6]

Honestly, that would be down right cool.  Just look at how much people love the signatures on the original A1000.  You don't always know when something is going to be valued later on.  Unfortunately, that doesn't solve the problem of being able easily identify the item on eBay, or in a tech support forum.

I know that making a big deal out of version numbers might seem a little silly right now, but so do good comments to many when they are writing new code.  It isn't until a year later that the swearing starts.

It looks like there are already 3 or 4 individuals that have, or are in the process of producing MiniMig boards in quantity.  We know that there are at least a couple of people producing them as one offs.  Think about how much easier it will be for the community to support MiniMig users a year from now if we can just ask "What Model are you running?".  Instead of chasing rabbits, we would be able to identify problems that are know with particular runs of boards.

It is always easier to just get these things ironed out before you have a huge mess...