From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15943 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2003 17:36:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15914 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2003 17:36:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO msgdirector3.onetel.net.uk) (212.67.96.159) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2003 17:36:54 -0000 Received: from miso.calivar.com (213-78-73-229.friaco.onetel.net.uk [213.78.73.229]) by msgdirector3.onetel.net.uk (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id BKW24766; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:36:49 GMT Received: from miso.calivar.com (miso.calivar.com [127.0.0.2]) by miso.calivar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C036528DF45; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:36:48 +0000 (GMT) To: Gary Parnes Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com References: <4D9A0AA4D1393D4D8791FD2985D37E3DBBEC73@lpdsrv04.logicpd.com> From: Nick Garnett Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4D9A0AA4D1393D4D8791FD2985D37E3DBBEC73@lpdsrv04.logicpd.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [ECOS] Re: Porting question X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 [Please keep the mailing list in the CC list, that way the messages will be archived and be useful to others.] Gary Parnes writes: > Use the anoncvs method? Okay, but one of my concerns is making sure that my > package works with the most recent release (version 2.0, in this case). > Also, the web page warns that anoncvs stuff is not guaranteed to be 100% > stable. It's what most of us work out of all the time. Any genuine bugs will get fixed fairly quickly, and most of those will be in other HALs anyway. The core of eCos, the kernel, TCP/IP stack etc. is very stable. The only real danger is that you happen to check it out just after someone has done something silly, and don't notice when it gets fixed. > > Would it make sense to work on the 2.0 tree, and then try my results against > the anoncvs version once I think I'm done, or are the changes since 2.0 > significant enough that I'd end up doing a lot of rework? To be honest, for a self-contained HAL there will not be any serious differences and you can develop it in either source tree. The only inconvenience of doing it in the 2.0 tree is that if you want to contribute it back you have to change all the "v2_0" directories to "current". -- Nick Garnett eCos Kernel Architect http://www.ecoscentric.com The eCos and RedBoot experts -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss