> -----Original Message----- > From: avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org > [mailto:avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org] On > Behalf Of Ruud Vlaming > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:29 AM > To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org > Cc: Per Arnold Blaasmo; Boyapati, Anitha > Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Patches for 1.7.1? > > On Thursday 24 March 2011, Per Arnold Blaasmo wrote: > > You guys must remember that these patches is the one Atmel currently > > uses in the toolchain built for AVR Studio 5. > > > > It is not the official avr-libc patches. > > The avr-libc might or might not accept these patches in the future and > > make a new version of avr-libc with these patches. Atmel hope the > > project will want to use them. > > Good point! Would it be an idea to introduce a naming convention so > that is clear to anyone? So instead of > > 40-avr-libc-1.7.1-xmega32X1.patch > > we would have: > > 40-avr-libc-1.7.1-atmel-xmega32X1.patch > > and when the official one comes out: > > 40-avr-libc-1.7.1-official-xmega32X1.patch > > These patches could be identical when it is > adopted as such by the developers in charge. > But it could also be a further improved one.
I think this is adding some needless overhead. In reality there is not much time between the avr-libc patches that are used in any toolchain release and getting them accepted into avr-libc. In fact, most of the time, the patches get into the avr-libc release before the toolchain distribution release. > This would solve: > > > Atmel will always be in front of the community project internally so > > Atmel will probably always have patches to the latest public version. > Not really. It has always been this and it has never been a problem before. _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
