That is a TON of pre-reading that would need to be done before anyone could review. I would fear that if we make reading through ALL of that a prerequisite to review, that we would never get sufficient review coverage, thus preventing this from ever getting in.
Because of that, I'd suggest you keep those descriptions in mind and post references in response to the discussion comments. The rules of review will remain the same as they have historically been, which seems to be working well for the product. Thanks, Erich On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 18:45 +0000, Light, John J wrote: > The patch for IPv6 plumbing is now complete, and it works with IPv4. > > > > I haven?t been responding to comments while I finished the work. Now > I will start. > > > > I want to set some ground rules for the comments. I hope the > maintainers will back me up on this. > > > > ? This work is based on JIRA Issues: > > o IOT-475 IPv6 address family handling at the socket layer of > connectivity > > o IOT-476 IPv6/IPv4 address family selection > > o IOT-477 IPv6 plumbing throughout the stack > > o IOT-488 IPv6 plumbing throughout the stack > > o IOT-489 IPv6 Presence changes > > o IOT-493 IPv6 changes to OCDoResource and OCStack.c > > o IOT-509 IPv6 support for singlethread using co-routine queues > > ? The results of the work are described in the Wiki. > > o https://wiki.iotivity.org/ipv6 > > * Early description of IPv6 changes > * C API changes for IPv6 > * The C++ API changes for IPv6 > * Discussion of IPv6 API changes > * IP address plumbing changes related to IPv6 > > ? You should be familiar with all these documents before making > substantive comments about the patch. > > ? Comments on the patch should concern how well the patch meets > the objectives spelled out in the JIRA issues. > > ? Comments about the need for the changes or the nature of the > changes should be addressed to the JIRA Issues or the IoTivity-Dev > mailing list generally. (Or even the OSWG mailing list since the API > is changed.) > > ? You should be aware that I changed a lot of code. I also > avoided changing lots of code. I feel the changes I made were all > related to IPv6 and necessary for moving the code base forward. In > some cases, I simplified the code with my changes. I hope everyone > recognizes that the IoTivity code base will have to be further > simplified in order to allow us to add new features while retaining > maintainability. > > > > I hope everyone involved understands the importance of getting IPv6 > into the IoTivity code base. > > > > John Light > > Intel OTC OIC Development > > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
