* [ECOS] Re: Porting question
[not found] <4D9A0AA4D1393D4D8791FD2985D37E3DBBEC73@lpdsrv04.logicpd.com>
@ 2003-12-02 17:36 ` Nick Garnett
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Nick Garnett @ 2003-12-02 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gary Parnes; +Cc: ecos-discuss
[Please keep the mailing list in the CC list, that way the messages will
be archived and be useful to others.]
Gary Parnes <GaryP@logicpd.com> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread