[Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c]

[Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c]

[Gary Thomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 193 bytes --]

So, what is the expected policy?  I can't see any of us spending
tremendous resources trying to keep a release branch up-to-date.

Comments?

-- 
Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
MLB Associates

[-- Attachment #2: Forwarded message - RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2094 bytes --]

From: "David Marqvar (DAM)" <DAM@tt.dk>
To: 'Gary Thomas' <gary@mlbassoc.com>
Cc: eCos patches <ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 18:51:57 +0200
Message-ID: <E70B4FA554FB6C44BC7FAC9A9CE0CBC436D53B@ntex.tt.dk>

> This looks reasonable to me and I have applied the change (patch
> attached).
Good :-)

> I don't think that there will be any patches made to the 2.0 branch
> now that it has been "released".

Does that mean that the ecos-v2_0-branch will *not* be touched at all from
now on?
It comes as a surprise to me since I would expect bug-fixes with relevance
for eCos 2.0 to be committed to this branch as well - thus only new
features/major revisions would be kept solely in the latest branch.

/David Marqvar
Thrane & Thrane

Re: [Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c]

[Jonathan Larmour]

Gary Thomas wrote:
> So, what is the expected policy?  I can't see any of us spending
> tremendous resources trying to keep a release branch up-to-date.
> 
> Comments?

The branch is tagged with a release tag, so I have no aversion if people 
_want_ to check fixes in.... but my personal opinion is that I can't see 
us doing another release based on the 2.0 branch. If we wanted to do one, 
I would suggest cutting a new branch off the trunk. But there's nothing to 
warrant that for a while yet IMHO.

BTW, sorry I've been well out of the loop recently. I'm still, er, 
preoccupied (as per <http://worf.jifvik.org:9999/gallery/baby>). I'll try 
and get back into things now.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine

ecos-v2_0-branch [ was Re: [Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c] ]

[John Dallaway]

I think the finite time we can devote to "eCos maintainer" activities is 
better spent on improving the head (including the processing of contributed 
patches) than maintaining a release branch which has now fulfilled its 
purpose. I therefore propose that we consider the ecos-v2_0-branch to be 
dead.

John Dallaway

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Larmour
Date: Wednesday 21 May 2003 19:03
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c]

> Gary Thomas wrote:
> > So, what is the expected policy?  I can't see any of us spending
> > tremendous resources trying to keep a release branch up-to-date.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> The branch is tagged with a release tag, so I have no aversion if people
> _want_ to check fixes in.... but my personal opinion is that I can't see
> us doing another release based on the 2.0 branch. If we wanted to do one,
> I would suggest cutting a new branch off the trunk. But there's nothing
> to warrant that for a while yet IMHO.
>
> BTW, sorry I've been well out of the loop recently. I'm still, er,
> preoccupied (as per <http://worf.jifvik.org:9999/gallery/baby>). I'll try
> and get back into things now.
>
> Jifl

Re: ecos-v2_0-branch [ was Re: [Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c] ]

[Gary Thomas]

On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 13:01, John Dallaway wrote:
> I think the finite time we can devote to "eCos maintainer" activities is 
> better spent on improving the head (including the processing of contributed 
> patches) than maintaining a release branch which has now fulfilled its 
> purpose. I therefore propose that we consider the ecos-v2_0-branch to be 
> dead.

This matches my feelings as well.

I want to thank everyone that worked to get 2.0 so such a release 
could be made.  This, in itself, should be considered a milestone 
in the history of eCos.  Now, on to the future :-)

> 
> John Dallaway
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Larmour
> Date: Wednesday 21 May 2003 19:03
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Possible deadlock in serial.c]
> 
> > Gary Thomas wrote:
> > > So, what is the expected policy?  I can't see any of us spending
> > > tremendous resources trying to keep a release branch up-to-date.
> > >
> > > Comments?
> >
> > The branch is tagged with a release tag, so I have no aversion if people
> > _want_ to check fixes in.... but my personal opinion is that I can't see
> > us doing another release based on the 2.0 branch. If we wanted to do one,
> > I would suggest cutting a new branch off the trunk. But there's nothing
> > to warrant that for a while yet IMHO.
> >
> > BTW, sorry I've been well out of the loop recently. I'm still, er,
> > preoccupied (as per <http://worf.jifvik.org:9999/gallery/baby>). I'll try
> > and get back into things now.
> >
> > Jifl
-- 
Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
MLB Associates