Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > We have an uncrustify.cfg file that infers a certain style. That was > accepted into the project months ago. By inference I could have run the > entire source file through uncrustify and I suppose you would have > whined even more. > That should have been a separate patch then, posted *before* your work that does functional changes. Mixing the two makes the patch difficult to read.
> Not really. > > It looks like I will have to fork the project. This is un-sufferable. > I spend a week and get this. Stuff it. > It seems you are not even interested in really contributing - it seems that is has to be either your way or no way. You have been on the list for some time, you should have known the preferred rules of submitting patches. Disregarding them and then stating "take it or leave it" is no way to cooperate on a project. > BTW, the reason this patch was submitted as one is that it cannot be > separated. The system won't work with the reduced tms_seq clocks. When > does trust enter into this? > I do not think your approach is the right way to gain trust. cu Michael _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
