From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26317 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2007 11:15:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 26163 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2007 11:15:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:15:13 +0000 Received: from [76.167.204.177] (helo=PAULD) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1J38Va-0002e7-TC for ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:15:11 -0500 From: "Paul D. DeRocco" To: Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <004901c83e42$97f0bf40$887ba8c0@PAULD> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6822 In-Reply-To: <20071214104551.GD13033@lunn.ch> X-ELNK-Trace: bd7d5d4e6f8f652c74cfc7ce3b1ad11381c87f5e51960688ffb7e397b9fa9200197c9a6ae0349cdd350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: RE: [ECOS] Re: Is eCos project still alive? X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 > From: Andrew Lunn >=20 > It has been for a long time the aim to make a release once=20 > the copyright transfer to FSF is completed. This has take=20 > much much longer than we ever thought it would take. We are=20 > nearly there, there is just one copyright assignment left,=20 > which is taking a while to sort out. >=20 > Once this is completed we will start the work needed for a=20 > release. This is not something we can do overnight. It=20 > involves a lot of work. Nearly ever file needs to be touched=20 > in order to change the copyright notices. We probably need=20 > new tool chains, want to merge in the v2 flash branch, maybe=20 > pick up some patches which got dropped along the way etc. We=20 > need to do a lot of testing.... The problem that led to this thread is that there is no mention on any of the web pages of anything other than 2.0, even though in reality the CVS has hundreds of subsequent revisions of individual files in it. You don't get to see that unless you download the code and look at when the individual files were checked in. It's understandable that people would be unaware at first that the CVS doesn't simply contain "version 2.0". If the CVS could spit out an automated revision history, perhaps consisting of a separate web page for each month, and that had a link to it on the home page, people might not get this misimpression. --=20 Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com=20 -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss