On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 08:53 +0100, John Devereux wrote:
> Zach Welch writes:
> > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 23:24 +0200, Freddie Chopin wrote:
[snip]
> > [...]
> >> comfortable situation, because I know how to compile the package, but -
> >> believe me - there are hundreds of "domestic ARM developers"
Zach Welch writes:
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 23:24 +0200, Freddie Chopin wrote:
>> Sorry to interrupt (; I thought that I'd share my "outsider's opinion"
>> with all.
>
> Not at all. I hope more folks are willing to step up and share their
> opinions; without feedback, the maintainers cannot know
> I have it in my current "stable" work copy, based on 1606, together with
> some other small but potentially useful modifications that I am testing.
> Of course you can have a svn diff -r 1606.
> I have no I idea how much it is to get it into head and at the moment I
> would rather use my time for
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> Well, since it is more than five days old I suppose it is dead fish.
>>
>
> I could have been more precise to say: it is much more work to
> apply a patch later than sooner, ignoring the risk.
>
> It's balance.
>
>
>> But I can tell you that all the state transition
>> Example: there was a patch a while back (from Dick
>> Hollenbeck) that included about 60K of ft2232 and
>> TMS sequencing updates ... and gratuitous changes
>> to whitespace, and surely other things. I don't
>> know of many projects which wouldn't also reject
>> such patches with "please split
> Well, since it is more than five days old I suppose it is dead fish.
I could have been more precise to say: it is much more work to
apply a patch later than sooner, ignoring the risk.
It's balance.
> But I can tell you that all the state transition stuff works well, both
> in 7 state version
David Brownell wrote:
>>> Right. I think some patches should certainly be able
>>> to fit into the "keep that in the -next queue" category.
>>>
>>> Effective review is probably not easy here; who knows
>>> JTAG well enough to contribute non-cosmetic feedback?
>>>
>> Actually, a fair number
> > Right. I think some patches should certainly be able
> > to fit into the "keep that in the -next queue" category.
> >
> > Effective review is probably not easy here; who knows
> > JTAG well enough to contribute non-cosmetic feedback?
>
> Actually, a fair number of us _do_ know JTAG fairly wel
On May 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, David Brownell wrote:
Zack's "list" seemed useful in terms of having some
kind of direction be defined. But that's distinct
from defining release criteria, or merge criteria.
Yup. A todo list is great, but we need a more rigid definition of
what need to be d
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> David Brownell wrote:
> > Zack's "list" seemed useful in terms of having some
> > kind of direction be defined. But that's distinct
> > from defining release criteria, or merge criteria.
>
> The old list, or the new rebuild everything into loadable
>
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Rick Altherr wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2009, at 3:36 PM, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> >> I don't know when the cats can be herded into a 0.2 release
> >> at this point, but I'm pretty sure it's a month away at least.
> >
> > Hmm, i
On May 12, 2009, at 3:36 PM, David Brownell wrote:
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
I don't know when the cats can be herded into a 0.2 release
at this point, but I'm pretty sure it's a month away at least.
Hmm, if you don't know ... then who could?
The process *does* seem, for
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 15:36 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > I don't know when the cats can be herded into a 0.2 release
> > at this point, but I'm pretty sure it's a month away at least.
>
> Hmm, if you don't know ... then who could?
I do. Cats can
David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>
>> I don't know when the cats can be herded into a 0.2 release
>> at this point, but I'm pretty sure it's a month away at least.
>>
>
> Hmm, if you don't know ... then who could?
>
> The process *does* seem, for now, as
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> I don't know when the cats can be herded into a 0.2 release
> at this point, but I'm pretty sure it's a month away at least.
Hmm, if you don't know ... then who could?
The process *does* seem, for now, as if it's largely
"commit patches to SVN" witho
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 23:24 +0200, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Sorry to interrupt (; I thought that I'd share my "outsider's opinion"
> with all.
Not at all. I hope more folks are willing to step up and share their
opinions; without feedback, the maintainers cannot know what you think.
Thank you for
One of the reasons that plans change dramatically is that
suddenly we have resources to get stuff done :-)
We can't decide when we will have resources and what those
resources want to work on If someone steps up with
a great patch, then I'd apply it to svn head. If we need
a release branch we
Sorry to interrupt (; I thought that I'd share my "outsider's opinion"
with all.
Just a while ago someone (Zach?) was talking about a need for a stable
"production cycle" with frequent release branches. A 0.2.0 release was
mentioned to happen after the recent perforance issues would got fixed
18 matches
Mail list logo
