board specific defines in commproc.h !?!?
Wolfgang Denk
wd at denx.de
Tue Jun 18 08:28:07 EST 2002
Dear Tom,
in message <20020617214339.GZ13541 at opus.bloom.county> you wrote:
>
> likely) for 2.4 and 2.5. And yes, an untested/lightly tested 2.5 patch
> is perfectly acceptible. 2.5 itself is only lightly tested (or not
> tested at all for some cases).
But don't you see the problem? Exactly this is what makes 2.5
unusable: it's a collection of lightly or not tested patches.
> I'm asking you (and everyone else) to submit new work for the community
> vs 2.5 before you submit it for 2.4. This has the bonus that the next
> stable release will have all of your fixes in it already and you won't
I don't see any bonus, but I do see additional (and most probably
wasted) efford.
Tom, let's stop here. I understand _what_ you say, and even parts of
the _why_, but it's not practical to me.
Wolfgang Denk
--
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd at denx.de
After a time, you may find that "having" is not so pleasing a thing,
after all, as "wanting." It is not logical, but it is often true.
-- Spock, "Amok Time", stardate 3372.7
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-embedded
mailing list