From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30929 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2003 12:02:32 -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 30922 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2003 12:02:31 -0000 To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [gnu.org #25869] eCos as an FSF project? References: <20030410214734.GH1904@gnu.org> <3E95FC5C.9070204@eCosCentric.com> From: Nick Garnett Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:02:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3E95FC5C.9070204@eCosCentric.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 Jonathan Larmour writes: > > I vote to go ahead with Red Hat, but if that fails, drop assignments > but retain a disclaimer. > > Something else to think about is whether we should plough ahead with > 2.0 final anyway, or wait till we hear from Red Hat, or at the very > least wait for some time period for Red Hat. For "just" the > documentation, they will hopefully be amenable to an accommodation - > it's not like the FSF are an unknown quantity! Something to consider > anyway, and it's obvious we can't wait with 2.0 going stale, so I > suggest a drop dead date, which we wouldn't be real close anyway, as > there are still some outstanding 2.0 issues. > I don't think we should hold up 2.0 for this issue -- release it when it's ready on technical grounds. While I am reluctant to have to go back and interact with Red Hat again -- mainly because of the delay it will cause. I guess we should at least try this. I doubt it will come to much though. If (when!) the Red Hat approach fails then I would vote for dropping assignments and accepting the consequences. -- Nick Garnett eCos Kernel Architect http://www.ecoscentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts