Re: Patches not getting into the tree?

["Andrew Lunn" <andrewlunn@fastmail.fm>]

Hi Jifl

I understand the problem, and if i was not traveling around alaska i
would help out. 
Anyway, from a "marketing perspective", a constant trickle of patches
as apposed to none and then a flood, looks better. At the moment it
looks like eCos development is dead. Even an explanation to the delay
on ecos-patches may help.

If you are continuing with the RH copywrite assignemt i guess my
ftpclient patch is ok to go straight in. How does it normaly work for
other open source code? I thought that so long as the copywrite owner
was clearly stated in each file, it was not a problem, unless you
wanted to change the licence. Then you need to contact each person and
get the OK. Isn't that how Mozila did it?   

     Andrew

On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 18:54:28 +0100, "Jonathan Larmour"
<jifl@jifvik.org> said:
> Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > 
> > I guys
> > 
> > Whats happening about getting patches into the CVS tree? eg
> > 
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-patches/2002-06/msg00030.html
> > 
> > has not made it in yet. Is mailing to ecos-patches enough or do we need
> > to do more?
> 
> I intend to work on the backlog a bit. As well as being suckered into
> returning to Red Hat for my notice, my spare eCos time has been devoted
> to
> some book reviewing that's had a hard time limit on it. There's
> temporarily
> a hiatus, so I'll see what I can do.
> 
> For some of the outstanding patches though, we'll come back to
> copyright
> assignment requirements, and we don't have a good story on that yet.
> We'll
> have to go with RH assignments for now.
> 
> Jifl
> -- 
> --[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
> --[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]--
> Opinions==mine
> 



-- 
http://fastmail.fm
 - Win a free email account: click here!