Hello, Thank you for your valuable feedback. I certainly understand your concerns and recommendations.
I will revisit the code and make it to function without new libftdi functions, at least for the time being, until these functions propagate into libftdi. Many thank Oleg ---- www.signalyzer.com On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:02 PM, David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net> wrote: > 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
