On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: > Everyone has little time, so it is not very realistic to expect a > counterproposal just some weeks after a proposal which took months > (years?) to design and implement. It is however very easy to spot > problems in a given proposal. It would have been just as easy to spot > the same problems if the proposal was first described and discussed, > before it was actually implemented.
The first thing I expect to do before joining the discussion is reading the code being discussed. If you need weeks to propose an alternative, just say "i need few weeks", no need to escalate idle discussions like this one. I would really prefer to talk over the code, rather than dreams :-) > Andreas' MPSSE driver is an excellent initiative to fix one big flaw. > Notice that it hasn't even become the default driver for those > interfaces yet, so obviously the project as a whole is not very fast > at fixing flaws. It must be a priority anyway. Except even Adnreas is not able to say how hit _driver_ relates to current or future design of an Interafce or Adapter layer... mpsse driver is just a different interface to the MPSSE engine of FT2232, its direct communication using libsusb, not libftdi, so there is an efficiencly improvement. How does that relate to the architecture change of OpenOCD? > Of course I do, but because the changes are functionally large such > discussion requires non-trivial effort. Very simple issues (like > extending ft2232 instead of using mpsse) are obviously much quicker > to notice and to mention. For me its no difference if I use ft2232 or mpsse, both will work. How will that solve the architectural issues? >> If we really don't get any consensus, it will be necessary to fork >> the project I guess > > Don't you realise that you already did that when you said that you do > not want to change your code? That concludes this trolling discussion and your ignorance.. I said I dont want to change my code because the changes are on purpose and I need good argument to change anything. I am open for discussion and good arguments. I did not say its impossible, I just need a good argument. If you want me to change anything, at least, first read it from start to end, tell me what you like to change and why and how ;-) Rebasing changes and editing commits is not enough, I told you can do it if you feel its mandatory, for me its not. I made commits to be as readable as possible, if you need reorganization go ahead, but the commits are in order that make changes step by step, changing that order may introduce problems, while the resulting code is the same, this is why I think it is waste of time to rewrite the changes, instead simply read them in different order if you really need that to understand. Changing the variable names into old style is also not good argument for me, because variable names and function names needs to be renamed to resemble logical organization of the code. Making step backwards is not a good argument for me. It looks like "oocd_" prefix and better naming convention is the only blocker for you here. I have applied most of the changes requested by Spen. Still you complain. For me you can read the fork/working code as well, and I expect to get better solution instead only telling what is wrong. You are not able to specify or demonstrate that better solution, only tell what is your impression of better solution, which is not enough for me. Show me something that is working. If its better then I will admit it, I have no problem with that :-) If you dont like my way of integration, simply reject all of the commits, its not the only way, you can produce a better solution. I am happy to see that happen. Still you seem to have no alternative no idea no plan no example to share. I am still waiting for that. This work is a good starting point. Solution that works. Its a proposition of the solution, not the only acceptable solution. It can be day by day improved. It will be easier to improve code that works rather than working with imaginary solutions and plans for upcoming years. I dont care how other projects work nor how bridges are built, what I care is to have a better tool for OCD here and now. It is over a month of idle discussion and nothing really happened. There are no constructive changes over the current proposition in the code, not even here on the list. This tells me a lot what could happen in future when bigger changes are necessary to introduce. If you have nothing constructive to say, say a lot about things you don't even read, and I am supposed to do all of the work alone, then what is the reason of this project and working with you? Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d _______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
