as for “ownership” or where is should be , you have that always once you got more then 1 system
well its a mess regardless once you have multiple systems using the same code and one of them wants to take “dedicated ownership" the split seems to work fine for mcuboot. a generic org that holds all the 3rd party “add-ons” is the cleanest way ( probably form a new one with the core systems as team members as admint) the others who inherit / use it ether git sub-module it or clone it straight. > On 31 Aug 2017, at 16:35, David Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:29:34AM -0700, Sterling Hughes wrote: >> In my opinion this should be a sub-project of Apache Mynewt: >> apache-mynewt-nffs. The filesystem is a part of our operating system, >> unlike a boot loader which is more naturally a joint project. We can market >> NFFS as a sub-project, and separately release it within the Mynewt PMC (from >> *core.) The project definition defines governance, but does not restrict >> multiple different releases. >> >> If we get critical mass on NFFS, we can break it into a sub-project of >> Apache Mynewt as the TLP (allowing it to have its own PMC/committers to vote >> on release), but that requires going through incubator which seems >> heavyweight to me. > > My only concern would be if this results in a fork of the project. I > don't know how heavily NFFS will be used in Zephyr, but it will be > interesting to see what happens if it does become popular, and starts > getting a bunch of patches. If it lives just in the Zephyr tree (or > another repo outside of Apache), will the code drift, making for a > mess. > > David
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
