On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 09:30 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 15 July 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > > It builds and I hope I resolved the few conflicts correctly. Not > > tested on Cortex M3 or A8. > > Hmm, could you maybe split this into two patches, more like what > Magnus did? #1 to move the DAP stuff from V7M support to ADIv5. > The other adding lots of A8 stuff. > > That would make it easier to review, also make the revision history > more comprehensible.
Here is a longer list of issues: - Split into more discrete changes: - One change per patch; his original post was better in this. - One patch per post; the original post feel short here. - Include commit messages that describe the changes in each patch. - Fix minor whitespace style problems: - Missing spaces before/after operator - Wrap long lines at less than 80 columns. - Remove all dead code: - Commented code and #if 0 blocks show the code is not finished. - Extended the documentation (in further patches from the series): - New commands were added: document their syntax and usage - Add a NEWS blurb; update TODO. - There may be other information to add about Cortex A8. - Patch does not show svn:eol-style native properties. I think Magnus needs to polish, split, and resubmit this patch (once he gets back from his vacation). First, it's his code. More importantly, every developer needs to learn how to produce, update, and revise their own patches in order to meet high standards of quality. This holds for any non-trivial open source community, not just OpenOCD. I loath the idea of asking others to fix code of an active developer. If I were to "finish" these patches, I would end up taking over enough momentum of the code to manage its forward motion. I expect anyone else with such initiative to feel a similar entitlement to do so, and such efforts would mean that it ceases to be "his" patches to manage. To me, this sounds like a rude thing to do, since he did not abandon those bits to the community's care. While we have provided the community with a patch that will apply against the trunk HEAD, that should be sufficient to enable him to finish the rest of the work. In the meantime, this patch should be used for testing only, and not committed without more work. However, I agree it may get better testing by being split up again, similar to how they were initially presented. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
