<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Regarding the 3.2.018, I will handle it this afternoon (my time).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regarding OTA and support for rev3 ESP32, at the moment, the OTA URL is composed of:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><ul class="MailOutline"><li class=""><server> (default <a href="http://api.openvehicles.com/firmware/ota" class="">api.openvehicles.com/firmware/ota</a>)</li><li class=""><base> (either /v3.0/ or /v3.1/ depending on CONFIG_OVMS_HW_BASE_3_0 or CONFIG_OVMS_HW_BASE_3_1</li><li class=""><tag> (default ‘main’)</li><li class="">/ovms3.ver</li></ul><div class=""><div><br class=""></div><div>My suggestion is to add the hardware platform (as detected by the code that provides metric m.hardware) in there. Perhaps replace <base> with something that detects /v3.0/, /v3.1/, or /v3.3/ based on a combination of <font color="#000000" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">CONFIG_OVMS_HW_BASE and m.hardware ESP32 revision? We should probably just implement that in the v3.3 code, so v3.2 and before keep using </span></font><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">CONFIG_OVMS_HW_BASE.</span></div><div><br class=""></div><div><font color="#000000" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">Regards, Mark.</span></font></div><div><font color="#000000" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""><br class=""></span></font><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 19 Nov 2021, at 5:24 AM, Michael Balzer <<a href="mailto:dexter@expeedo.de" class="">dexter@expeedo.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="content-isolator__container"><div class="protected-part"><div class="protected-title">Signed PGP part</div><div class="protected-content">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
<div class="">
Sounds OK for me.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regarding using the platform revision instead of
CONFIG_OVMS_HW_BASE_3_x config: so in case someone accidentally
installs the wrong firmware, the system would heal itself by a
simple OTA update? Sounds good and should be a simple change.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards,<br class="">
Michael<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.11.21 um 08:06 schrieb Mark
Webb-Johnson:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:EDB9F262-09FF-4D00-88F9-84707E5284FB@webb-johnson.net" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">We need to get the v3.3 release ready for release
now, as the new v3.3 hardware is about to enter production and
the factory needs the firmware.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Accordingly, I suggest:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<ol class="MailOutline">
<li class="">I have already updated the for-v3.3 branch with
all the recent changes from v3.2.<br class="">
<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">We now (today/tomorrow) release the current v3.2
branch as tag 3.2.018, OTA release. This would be the
(hopefully) last v3.2 release.<br class="">
<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">After release of that, we branch off master to a
v3.2 branch, for historical purposes (and if we need it for
anything).<br class="">
<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">We then merge back for-v3.3 into the master
branch and start working through the usual daily builds for
that to get it ready for production. I think there is still
some work to do on pouring the plugins, but the core code
(and in particular new modem support) should be ok now.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I think we will need to investigate an approach for
dual builds for v3.3-or-later and pre-v3.3 hardware, to take
advantage of the new ESP32 rev3 chips. I think those will
require a different sdkconfig. We can do that automatically in
the OTA system, by building the URL based on the ESP32 platform
revision. Should we do that with the v3.3 release (even if the
builds are for the moment the same), or at a later date?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Regards, Mark.</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26</pre>
</div>
</div></div><br class=""><iframe class="content-isolator__isolated-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" scrolling="auto" width="200" height="10" style="border:none;display:block;overflow:auto;" data-src="data:text/html;charset=UTF-8;base64,PGlmcmFtZS1jb250ZW50IGRhdGEtaWZyYW1lLWhlaWdodD0idHJ1ZSI+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX188QlI+T3Ztc0RldiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Q8QlI+T3Ztc0RldkBsaXN0cy5vcGVudmVoaWNsZXMuY29tPEJSPmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0cy5vcGVudmVoaWNsZXMuY29tL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vb3Ztc2RldjxCUj48L2lmcmFtZS1jb250ZW50Pg=="></iframe></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>