Hi! On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 12:17:19PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > >> I'd ask the original author, but it seems he's busy with other work, so to > >> avoid delays... > > > > Please try to ask him first? That is always nice, but you all also need > > to figure out what to do with the bounty. > > Going through the messages in this thread, my suggestion would be to pick > Senthil's conversion as it apparently has no regressions as reported by > Dimitar [1].
It is up to the avr maintainer what patch is accepted, of course :-) > Since the largest share of the bounty was donated by Atmel/Microchip, there > might be a conflict of interest as Senthil works for them from what I have > seen on his homepage. This is something that Senthil can clarify, there is no need to second-guess it -- there should be no conflict at all if he did it on his own time, for example. > If claiming the bounty should be a problem in this case, I would suggest > that Senthil donates the money for a good cause or maybe puts the money > on a different Bountysource campaign to either benefit GCC (I'm sure there > are enough other areas that could see some love) itself or another open source > project. > > Either way, the money is awarded to the individual who did the heavy lifting > and it's important that we keep it that way. Otherwise, there is a risk > that future potential contributors will refrain from picking up the task > from such a Bountysource campaign if there is a reduced chance for them > to claim such a bounty. The individual(s) who wrote the code. Yes. > After all, the whole idea of Bountysource is to delegate tasks that the > community is interested to being worked on to skilled developers who are > willing to spend a lot of their free time and to give them a small financial > reward in return. Normally, buying developer time for such extensive tasks > is way more expensive, so the community should appreciate anyone willing > to do such work for a comparably little amount of money. +1. Well, +100 or such :-) Segher
