* [APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch
@ 2003-03-19 16:31 John Dallaway
2003-03-19 16:53 ` Gary Thomas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: John Dallaway @ 2003-03-19 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-maintainers
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch
2003-03-19 16:31 [APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch John Dallaway
@ 2003-03-19 16:53 ` Gary Thomas
2003-03-19 20:28 ` Jonathan Larmour
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Gary Thomas @ 2003-03-19 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Dallaway; +Cc: eCos Maintainers
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
------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch
2003-03-19 16:53 ` Gary Thomas
@ 2003-03-19 20:28 ` Jonathan Larmour
2003-03-20 1:32 ` Nick Garnett
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2003-03-19 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gary Thomas; +Cc: John Dallaway, eCos Maintainers
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch
2003-03-19 20:28 ` Jonathan Larmour
@ 2003-03-20 1:32 ` Nick Garnett
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Nick Garnett @ 2003-03-20 1:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Larmour; +Cc: Gary Thomas, John Dallaway, eCos Maintainers
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-03-20 1:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-03-19 16:31 [APPROVE] EB40 RedBoot doc patch for 2.0 branch John Dallaway
2003-03-19 16:53 ` Gary Thomas
2003-03-19 20:28 ` Jonathan Larmour
2003-03-20 1:32 ` Nick Garnett
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).