Hi Andrew. As a non-cisco observer to group, I respectfully disagree. I'm sure the old code is still available in the repo for your use, should you wish to use it. You however took the position that the community here needs to take their resources and use them to maintain a solution that you favor. At least, that's how I saw it.
If you read the links you posted, "Please don't argue unceasingly for your preferred course of action when a decision for some other course has already been made. That tends to block the activity's progress." Dave and Damian offered you direction in-line with the direction that they have taken in an effort to help you meet your objectives. I don't think it's reasonable to tell others that they need to commit their valuable resources to maintain your preference. Look, I have change-sets that weren't accepted, I understand it, but they still exist in the repo and I cherry-pick them, so I can meet my objectives. I often share your "feeling" that this is really a "cisco" project. But, being objective for a moment, all those cisco emails committing the change-sets day-in and day-out are individuals who have taken on the responsibility at the end of the day to ensure that the code continues to work. While I don't speak for the community, I'm pretty sure no one would object to you resurrecting and maintaining your toolset of choice. Can we please let this thread die, It's not a productive use of anyone's time. Paul On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:00 PM Damjan Marion <dmar...@me.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 19 Dec 2018, at 17:46, Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:29 AM Dave Barach (dbarach) > > > <dbar...@cisco.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Please give the instructions at > https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/manual/cmake-toolchains.7.html#cross-compiling > a try and let us know what happens. > > > > > > Wow. So much harder to do than what autoconf provides. I think going > > > to cmake is a mistake and that it needs to be reverted. Again the > > > only reason why VPP moved was for faster compiling by what a few > > > minutes but provide a messy interface to use instead. I guess VPP > > > does not care about easy of compiling but would rather have faster > > > compiling. > > > > Over my dead body :) > > This attitute does not belong in Open source projects. It is exactly > the reason why Linus is doing Hugs now and why the GNU project has its > own kind communication guides: > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html > > I am explaining why techincally it is a mistake and you basically just > did a bully method. This is not acceptable. Maybe inside Cisco it is > but in open source world it is not. > > Thanks, > Andrew Pinski > > > > > -- > > Damjan > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#11705): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/11705 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/28800506/1594641 > Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io > Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [ > pvi...@vinciconsulting.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#11711): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/11711 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/28800506/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
