Uzebox Code Base 3.0 released!

Topics related to the API, programming discussions & questions, coding tips, bugs, etc. should go here.
Post Reply
User avatar
uze6666
Site Admin
Posts: 4801
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:13 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Uzebox Code Base 3.0 released!

Post by uze6666 »

After quite some time in "beta" state, the code base is promoted to "ready" :) . A new naming scheme is now used (see this thread), releases will be named "uzebox-2.0","uzebox-3.0", etc. The trunk will now be the development branch (as it should always have been :? ). Checkout "stable" releases using tags.

Here's what's been done in the SVN:
-The trunk was tagged as uzebox-2.0
-Beta4 was deleted as it was redundant
-Beta5 replaced the trunk
-The new trunk was tagged uzebox-3.0

Also, as a recap, here's all the stuff added since release 2.0:
  • Major Refactoring: All video modes in their own files
  • New video modes: 3,4,6,7,8 (See the WIKI for details)
  • Assembly functions in their own sections to save flash
  • Added Vsync user callbacks (call user defined functions at the beginning or end of VSYNC)
  • UART Receive buffer
  • Packrom tool to make .uze file
  • SD card game loader/bootloader project
  • Various code cleanup & optimizations
  • Video mode 3 now has a -DSCROLLING=1 to enable XY scrolling. Disabling scrolling saves RAM and gives back 2 more tile columns (30 instead of 28 with scrolling).
  • SD/MMC low level functions ported to assembler to cut on flash utilization
  • The emulator was refactored, support for .UZE files, SD card & GDB debugging was added
  • Lots of new demo projects
Enjoy!

EDIT May, 14 2010: Code base 3.2 released

-Uze
User avatar
paul
Posts: 457
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Uzebox Code Base 3.0 released!

Post by paul »

Well I think it's pretty obvious from my googlecode repo that I have no idea how version control works... :lol: I'll have to clean things up.

However, it might be a good idea to have a branch for each tag so that any major bugs can be fixed for those releases and then a new tag like uzebox-2.1 can be made.
User avatar
filipe
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:37 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Uzebox Code Base 3.0 released!

Post by filipe »

paul wrote:Well I think it's pretty obvious from my googlecode repo that I have no idea how version control works... :lol: I'll have to clean things up.

However, it might be a good idea to have a branch for each tag so that any major bugs can be fixed for those releases and then a new tag like uzebox-2.1 can be made.
Paul, this is interesting and wasn't discussed. Please, see my reply in viewtopic.php?p=4749#p4749

-Filipe.
User avatar
uze6666
Site Admin
Posts: 4801
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:13 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Re: Uzebox Code Base 3.0 released!

Post by uze6666 »

@Paul: Yes, I think the the good way to do it would be to have a "maintenance" branch created out of the last release (now uzebox-3.0) where only bug fixes would be commited. What about the name though? uzebox-3.0-stable or uzebox-3.0-maintenance ? The "stable" appellation seems more common. What you guys think?

-Uze
User avatar
Jhysaun
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:32 am

Re: Uzebox Code Base 3.0 released!

Post by Jhysaun »

uze6666 wrote:@Paul: Yes, I think the the good way to do it would be to have a "maintenance" branch created out of the last release (now uzebox-3.0) where only bug fixes would be commited. What about the name though? uzebox-3.0-stable or uzebox-3.0-maintenance ? The "stable" appellation seems more common. What you guys think?

-Uze

well I still confused on how we got from 5 to 3, so Im ok with whatever you guys come up with.

>J
Lerc wrote:I intend to use my powerful skills of procrastination to ensure that when I get to making things, the chips will be available.
User avatar
uze6666
Site Admin
Posts: 4801
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:13 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Re: Uzebox Code Base 3.0 released!

Post by uze6666 »

well I still confused on how we got from 5 to 3, so Im ok with whatever you guys come up with.
Yeah, I know sorry for that. There was no formal version scheme before. Let's just say that betav5 meant more "2.5" since the code was really based on the second "release", the one including mode 2 back then. Anyhow, we start with a clean slate..."betaV5" => 3.0 and things will be less confusing from now on!

-Uze
Post Reply