From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24723 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2003 17:25:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24693 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 17:25:15 -0000 Message-ID: <3E775627.8090803@eCosCentric.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:25:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021203 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Dallaway Cc: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Proposal for processing patches for the eCos 2.0 branch References: <200303180848.24682.jld@ecoscentric.com> <1047995318.7459.2925.camel@hermes.chez-thomas.org> <200303181605.21189.jld@ecoscentric.com> In-Reply-To: <200303181605.21189.jld@ecoscentric.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 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