Re: Proposal for processing patches for the eCos 2.0 branch

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com>]

John Dallaway wrote:
> 
> The usual procedures for patches to the trunk of the repository would be 
> unaffected by all this.
> 
> Please comment on or otherwise indicate your acceptance of this proposal

Everything except the 2 day limit. Not everyone can necessarily turn 
around replies that quickly if they're out of town. Obviously you're 
trying to curtail the patch submission process to prevent everything all 
happening at the last minute, but I think that's safe enough because as we 
get closer to final, patches will need to be more and more important to 
qualify anyway, and the default after all is "no", so it's in people's 
interests to get patches in.

Oh, and a cvs diff command to run is as good as a pointer to ecos-patches 
IMHO. i.e. "cvs diff -D date1 -D date2 somepackage". It'll be obvious from 
the rationale and the date what the ecos-patches message is if anyone's 
interested to look at the original. The diff is more useful than the 
ecos-patches mail, because many (contributed) patches are changed somewhat 
before committing; and sometimes you need multiple patches anyway.

 > and
> whether you think configtool patches should be excepted or not.

I don't think I'm qualified to say what should or shouldn't go in the 
config tool, and you're the one making the changes, and you're more 
cautious than me :-), so I'm happy.

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