From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6232 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2009 13:39:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 6198 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2009 13:39:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.149) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:39:15 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 13so729700eye.48 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:39:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.211.158.8 with SMTP id k8mr7131284ebo.98.1255527553247; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:39:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AD5D020.8050207@ecoscentric.com> References: <4AD5D020.8050207@ecoscentric.com> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: From: Patrick Doyle To: Alex Schuilenburg Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D8yvind_Harboe?= , eCos Disuss Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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] Tracking eCos as a hg/git submodule X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Alex Schuilenburg wrote: > =D8yvind Harboe wrote on 2009-10-14 12:37: > > However, while external developers may want to use submodules and indeed > have eCos as a submodule as you suggest, I dont really see that much of > a need for them within the public eCos repo myself - unless you really > want to break down individual eCos packages into separate submodules but > IMHO that is just taking things too far. I have a very weak disagreement with that last point... I think that it might make sense to package the different processors as submodules. At least, I thought that might make sense back in the day when I ported eCos to run on the OMAP. I did the port; published it on the mailing list; Jonathan reviewed it; I changed jobs; updated the port; ported it again to another OMAP variant as well as several different boards custom designed at the new job; and never saw my original port make it to the official repository. I'm not complaining... there were only 2 or possible 3 other people in the world who were slightly interested in the port, and I pointed them to the patches on the mailing list and helped them out as best as I could. Besides, there was no reasonable way for the eCos maintainers to test or integrate my ports into the mainline tree. But I recall thinking at the time, "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if I could just publish this package somewhere and let others use it." If I were to do this again today, I would probably place my ports on GitHUB and just make an announcement on the mailing list that the ports were available to anybody who wanted to use them. Some of Jonathan's criticisms with my original port had to do with concerns regarding code that had, ahem, been too inspired by Linux. For quite valid reasons, he couldn't let that code into the official repository. If I had published it on my own (along with the disclaimers that such-and-such modules were, ahem, inspired by similar code in the Linux kernel), then the official eCos repository would not be tainted by pure GPL code. As I said, it's a weak disagreement, but I think that eCos' packaging system lends itself quite well to grafting in submodules from Git (or mercurial, with which I have no experience). It could also streamline the core eCos distribution and remove the need to carry around code for ancient ports and processors. That's my next $.02 contribution to the discussion. --wpd -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss