. McNeill
Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/gpio
Shouldn't we also add a dependency from the gpio module to require the
sysmon_taskq module?
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, Jared D. McNeill wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: jmcneill
Date: Thu Oct 15 09:07:49 UTC 2015
Modified
Shouldn't we also add a dependency from the gpio module to require the
sysmon_taskq module?
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, Jared D. McNeill wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: jmcneill
Date: Thu Oct 15 09:07:49 UTC 2015
Modified Files:
src/sys/dev/gpio: files.gpio
Log Message:
Module Name:src
Committed By: mbalmer
Date: Sun Aug 23 12:08:57 UTC 2009
Modified Files:
src/sys/dev/gpio: gpio.c
Log Message:
Prevent the creation of duplicate pin names in GPIOPINSET.
Problem noticed by rmind a while ago.
This should read GPIOSET.
Arnaud Lacombe writes:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> And in addition to being less than 24 hours old, the code was his own
>> code. The clear de facto rule is that you can change code you wrote and
>> own with a lot less approval, even for a new developer, than oth
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Eh, if we make it too hard to commit to code under active development,
> people won't actively develop. Marc has also shown that he's willing to
> make reasonable changes when improvements are pointed out to him.
>
That's why I _just_ put m
Hi Perry,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> And in addition to being less than 24 hours old, the code was his own
> code. The clear de facto rule is that you can change code you wrote and
> own with a lot less approval, even for a new developer, than other stuff
> requires
Arnaud Lacombe writes:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:26 PM, matthew green wrote:
>> incidentially, i actually did object to this change on ICB last night
>> but i was off to bed and didn't feel like arguing at the time. i
>> didn't expect to see it commited straight away. so marc's claim that
>>
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:26 PM, matthew green wrote:
> incidentially, i actually did object to this change on ICB last night
> but i was off to bed and didn't feel like arguing at the time. i
> didn't expect to see it commited straight away. so marc's claim that
> it did not get any objections i
In article <87ws5vmk70@snark.cb.piermont.com>,
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
>Tonnerre LOMBARD writes:
>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>>> That's another thing: quit being so rude to a new developer. Even if it
>>> was bad for him to do t
In article <87ws5vmk70@snark.cb.piermont.com>,
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
>Tonnerre LOMBARD writes:
>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>>> That's another thing: quit being so rude to a new developer. Even if it
>>> was bad for him to do this commit, it would b
Tonnerre LOMBARD writes:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> That's another thing: quit being so rude to a new developer. Even if it
>> was bad for him to do this commit, it would be unreasonable to tell him
>> off so impolitely.
>
> I'd prefer of you left this
Salut,
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 12:48:06PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> That's another thing: quit being so rude to a new developer. Even if it
> was bad for him to do this commit, it would be unreasonable to tell him
> off so impolitely.
I'd prefer of you left this judgment to him and me.
Tonnerre LOMBARD writes:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 12:14:28PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> > While you're still a newdev, please get approval from a specific person
>> > before you commit changes.
>>
>> I don't think the change was unreasonable or required more approval than
>> Marc already
Salut,
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 12:14:28PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > While you're still a newdev, please get approval from a specific person
> > before you commit changes.
>
> I don't think the change was unreasonable or required more approval than
> Marc already got.
Since it changes th
Tonnerre LOMBARD writes:
>> >I am somehow missing an "approved by:" in this commit message. Whose
>> >approval did you get?
>>
>> It was discussed on ICB and no one really objected after the name
>> was changed.
>
> While you're still a newdev, please get approval from a specific person
> before
Salut,
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 04:07:21PM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote:
> >>Log Message:
> >>Simplify the use _a lot_ by hooking this to sysctl instead of bio(4).
> >>When it attaches, it creates a hw.gpiosimN.value sysctl node
> >>which can
> >>then be used to manipulate the simulated device state.
>
Am 26.07.2009 um 16:01 schrieb Tonnerre LOMBARD:
Salut,
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 01:45:20PM +, Marc Balmer wrote:
Log Message:
Simplify the use _a lot_ by hooking this to sysctl instead of bio(4).
When it attaches, it creates a hw.gpiosimN.value sysctl node which
can
then be used to man
Salut,
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 01:45:20PM +, Marc Balmer wrote:
> Log Message:
> Simplify the use _a lot_ by hooking this to sysctl instead of bio(4).
> When it attaches, it creates a hw.gpiosimN.value sysctl node which can
> then be used to manipulate the simulated device state.
I am somehow
18 matches
Mail list logo
