One: checklist for release v1.5.0

[chunseoklee]

Checklist

• [x] Branch out : https://github.com/Samsung/ONE/tree/release/1.5.0
• [x] Release Note (#1649)
• [x] runtime binary for android
• [x] runtime binary for tizen (rpm)
• [x] runtime binary for arm-linux (tar.gz)
• [x] compiler binary for x64-linux (tar.gz)
• [x] runtime : svace, coverity critical 0
  
  
  
  • [x] svace link : https://code.sec.samsung.net/ahub/service/analyses/105410
  
  
  • [x] coverity link : https://code.sec.samsung.net/ahub/service/analyses/105411
  
  
• [x] runtime : line coverage 80% (http://npuci.mooo.com:8080/job/nnfw/job/master/job/daily-arm-runtime-coverage/664/)
• [x] version up
  
  
  
  • [x] tizen spec file (#1624)
  
  
  • [x] nnfw_version.h (#1685)
  
  
  • [x] document version in /docs/conf.py (#1923)
  
  
• [x] compiler : svace, coverity critical 0
  
  
  
  • [x] svace link : https://code.sec.samsung.net/ahub/service/analyses/107970
  
  
  • [x] coverity link : https://code.sec.samsung.net/ahub/service/analyses/110047
  
  

[chunseoklee]

@Samsung/nnfw svace and coverity criteria should be meet for release ?
(updated) about compiler's svace/coverity.

[hseok-oh]

@chunseoklee We're checking svace and coverity everyday internally, so runtime is not difficult to meet svace and coverity criteria.

[chunseoklee]

@chunseoklee We're checking svace and coverity everyday internally, so runtime is not difficult to meet svace and coverity criteria.

Opps, I have updated the comment.
I mean compiler's svace and coverity. Have we decided to include comiler's svace/coverity result into release criteria ?

[chunseoklee]

@chunseoklee We're checking svace and coverity everyday internally, so runtime is not difficult to meet svace and coverity criteria.

Opps, I have updated the comment.
I mean compiler's svace and coverity. Have we decided to include comiler's svace/coverity result into release criteria ?

There are too much(100 >) defects on https://code.sec.samsung.net/ahub/service/analyses/107872. It is hard to say we will meet coverity criteria soon.

[seanshpark]

There are too much(100 >) defects on https://code.sec.samsung.net/ahub/service/analyses/107872. It is hard to say we will meet coverity criteria soon.

@mhs4670go can you please take a look?

[chunseoklee]

There are too much(100 >) defects on https://code.sec.samsung.net/ahub/service/analyses/107872. It is hard to say we will meet coverity criteria soon.

@mhs4670go can you please take a look?

Fortunately, all the defects seems like false-alarm.

@mhs4670go could you please update coveirty link and status ?

[lemmaa]

@chunseoklee , we need to update document version, too.
PTAL https://github.com/Samsung/ONE/pull/1923

[seanshpark]

There are lots of runtime binary for... and I don't see any links how to make them.
Can anyone add a link explaining how to? or is there no document yet?

[lemmaa]

There are lots of runtime binary for... and I don't see any links how to make them.
Can anyone add a link explaining how to? or is there no document yet?

@seanshpark , sorry, that is my fault. I haven't been able to follow up #246 for a long time. I will proceed as soon as possible. Thank you for remind me!

@Samsung/one , However, now that the overall structure is in place, all your active participation will also be of great help. Thank you in advance!

[glistening]

@chunseoklee, @lemmaa Please see #1933. Please let me know if there is more to update about version.

[hyunsik-yoon]

Can I add one proposal? The release doc mentions one runtime and one compiler but the name of release files use old names such as nnfw and nncc. I am afraid that people will be curious of many names.
Maybe from 1.6.0, I think that it would be better to use, e.g., ONE_runtime.tar.gz, ONE_compiler.tar.gz.