From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21593 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2010 16:30:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 21581 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2010 16:30:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from virtual.bogons.net (HELO virtual.bogons.net) (193.178.223.136) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:30:21 +0000 Received: from jifvik.dyndns.org (jifvik.dyndns.org [85.158.45.40]) by virtual.bogons.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.2) with ESMTP id o29GUJt04101; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:30:19 GMT Received: from [192.168.7.9] (unknown [78.32.57.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jifvik.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3EB3FE1; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:30:17 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4B967798.5070207@jifvik.org> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:30:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergei Gavrikov Cc: John Dallaway , eCos Maintainers , Evgeniy Dushistov , Daniel Helgason Subject: Re: Getting Atmel AT91SAM9 into eCos References: <1266877649.3024.105.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4B839F37.50904@dallaway.org.uk> <4B94F776.1040707@dallaway.org.uk> <4B950183.7070004@jifvik.org> <4B951EE0.6020103@dallaway.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 [ snip good stuff from Sergei ] On 09/03/10 02:00, Sergei Gavrikov wrote: > > I'm sorry, I have no answer on the John's "far-reaching" question the > below, but, IMO "ARM9 v2" branch under CVS control can take the same > long period as "FLASH v2" took the time under CVS before that was merged > with mainstream. One of the main difficulties there was directly because of CVS. The trunk had moved on (particularly in RedBoot's flash support), so there was a lot of overhead to merging. These merge headaches would be much less with a modern VCS, so it won't be as scary to merge. Which is a big reason why people kept putting it off. > Let's get even first experimental trunk of eCos under > DVCS. It is important that with distributed VCS of eCos we would > collaborate with contributors more effectively. Well, this is my > look/feel only. Clearly you're keen on distributed :-). I agree, but we'll discuss elsewhere. I'll try and get a mail out today. Jifl