On Saturday 24 October 2009, Zach Welch wrote: > Thanks for being responsive to David's requests. While this patch looks > great for reviewing your new device's support, I think that we should > avoid pushing it to the repository. We should wait for the libftdi > patch to be committed and scheduled for some future release.
Yeah. We want to avoid being dependent on other projects. However, if there's a subset that could merge unconditionally without needing any libftdi patches, that'd likely be good. It'd get customers at least partial functionality sooner; and would constrain the amount of work to be done later. - Dave > Users should never be asked to patch a library to enable a configure > option, so -- until those changes are in its mainline -- you should > repost (with status updates) when this patch no longer applies cleanly. > So long as users need to wrangle the libftdi patch, they can manage to > apply this one too. So, this is not rejection, but rather a request for > temporary deferral. > > If the libftdi maintainers repeatedly ignore your patch, then we can > revisit this topic at that point; however, that seems unlikely to occur. _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
