[APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch

[APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch

[John Dallaway]

Name: EB40 RedBoot doc patch

Description: Tweaks to the instructions for installing RedBoot on an Atmel 
AT91EB40 board. The existing instructions are misleading in places and the 
length of the current ROMRAM images requires that the 'fis write' rune be
updated.

Rationale: Doc patches are harmless providing they don't introduce build doc 
errors. Without this patch, installation of RedBoot on the AT91EB40 board 
according to the instructions will fail.

Patch: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-patches/2003-03/msg00139.html

John Dallaway

Re: [APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch

[Gary Thomas]

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 09:32, John Dallaway wrote:
> Name: EB40 RedBoot doc patch
> 
> Description: Tweaks to the instructions for installing RedBoot on an Atmel 
> AT91EB40 board. The existing instructions are misleading in places and the 
> length of the current ROMRAM images requires that the 'fis write' rune be
> updated.
> 
> Rationale: Doc patches are harmless providing they don't introduce build doc 
> errors. Without this patch, installation of RedBoot on the AT91EB40 board 
> according to the instructions will fail.
> 
> Patch: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-patches/2003-03/msg00139.html

IMO as long as the changes reflect the state of the branch, there
needs to be no further discussion - certainly not for platform
details, etc.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |
MLB Associates              |  Consulting for the
+1 (970) 229-1963           |    Embedded world
http://www.mlbassoc.com/    |
email: <gary@mlbassoc.com>  |
gpg: http://www.chez-thomas.org/gary/gpg_key.asc
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch

[Jonathan Larmour]

Gary Thomas wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 09:32, John Dallaway wrote:
> 
>>Name: EB40 RedBoot doc patch
>>
>>Description: Tweaks to the instructions for installing RedBoot on an Atmel 
>>AT91EB40 board. The existing instructions are misleading in places and the 
>>length of the current ROMRAM images requires that the 'fis write' rune be
>>updated.
>>
>>Rationale: Doc patches are harmless providing they don't introduce build doc 
>>errors. Without this patch, installation of RedBoot on the AT91EB40 board 
>>according to the instructions will fail.
>>
>>Patch: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-patches/2003-03/msg00139.html
> 
> 
> IMO as long as the changes reflect the state of the branch, there
> needs to be no further discussion - certainly not for platform
> details, etc.

In fact, shall we just say that doc patches (like target patches) are exempt?

I'm also beginning to dislike this "voting" thing as such in the sense 
that it's very noisy and it's not clear when consensus is reached and it's 
okay to apply the patch. I'd prefer it to be "objections only".

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

Re: [APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch

[Nick Garnett]

Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com> writes:

> In fact, shall we just say that doc patches (like target patches) are exempt?
> 
> I'm also beginning to dislike this "voting" thing as such in the sense
> that it's very noisy and it's not clear when consensus is reached and
> it's okay to apply the patch. I'd prefer it to be "objections only".

I'll vote for that :-)

-- 
Nick Garnett                    eCos Kernel Architect
http://www.ecoscentric.com/     The eCos and RedBoot experts