How would I go about setting the four GPIO points on an FT232 chip to
be used as a JTAG device? These points are:
CBUS0
...
There are a few caveats with these.
First, the CBUS bitbang mode has to be set up in the EEPROM. It is not possible
to setup CBUS bitbang mode if it is not configured
Hi,
The development could move to primarily use git on SF as well, IMHO
there's no need to change the provider, and why change the name?
Anyway, if you all decide to move to github, appropriate redirecting
information can be put on the SF site.
> What is needed to get it included?
Main
> Showing the world that this project is not completely abandoned.
> That be easy done by applying the patch in the start of this thread.
Ok. First step done. Please take this as some sign of good intentions.
Will look through open issues in the tracker soon, hope to get more done
not later
> A quick search did bring me
And https://github.com/cmungall/gosf2github looks promising, it can even
map usernames. I will try that.
Mike, what are the next steps towards github? I probably need some time
to become acquainted with the services there.
Kolja
--
Mr. K. Waschk - Hamburg -
> i synced it by hand which meant throwing out the recent merge
Thanks. I was about to manually "port" the commits today or tomorrow but
hoped for a comment from you until then. How do you think about the
future of the SVN repository and SF in general though?
Kolja
Hi,
> Urjtag SVN got some commits.
> How is it synchronized to git?
I too just realized (afterwards) from old postings here that this svn >
git sync has been performed more or less manually by Mike Frysinger and
is no SourceForge service. Does the script still live somewhere?
Kolja
On
Hi,
> I presume you want to to switch to GIT while staying on Sourceforge, where
> the minority is.
Yes, *for now*, because at the moment I'd like to spend time on code &
release, rather than work on migrating version and issue control content
etc. to another hoster. I can spend only a few
> How about a new release after 8 years? =)
Hi,
I started to sort some of the existing issues so that resolved ones
since 0.10 now have a new tag '0.17', preparing a release with proper
NEWS info. But then somehow stopped activity, waiting for further info
from Mike about his plans (he
I also had somewhat good experiences with Ninja, but no really stringent
reason to use it. To me it seems that CMake is better regarding
Cross-Platform decisions, Ninja with regard to speed when doing rebuilds
after only a few code changes?
Kolja
Hi,
> there plans to release 0.11 soon?
What exactly are the (real) requirements to name it a "release" rather
than use just a tagged clone/checkout from GIT/SVN?
At some point in time, it will be the right time to fork.
A fork by itself doesn't give you a formal release nor someone who
A fork by itself doesn't give you a formal release nor someone who cares
for it. If you or someone else wants to jump in here at sourceforge to
help it, you're welcome. I'd consider that more desirable.
Oh, that was unclear from my side. I meant to say *help here at
sourceforge* is more
- find out how and where to put the new content online
> github? with move to github additional advantage should be
This shouldn't have been misunderstood as another trigger for another
"move to github" reply, please. I just meant who makes the release must
find out how to put content
Hi
to github" reply, please
Why not?
I've made a number of posts regarding my opinion on this topic in the
past, no need to repeat.
Although from the posts here it seems desired by many to re-base the
project somewhere else, there has not been anyone yet who proved really
willing to
13 matches
Mail list logo
