On Dec 18, 2008, at 9:06 AM, [email protected] wrote:

1) Spencer Oliver's concern about legal implications.  If this is a
problem, nothing below matters. It is one vote (or not even a vote, so much as voicing of a possible concern, I can't say), but it only takes one vote to make something not unanimous. I don't know how such things work
in this particular organization.  The law appears to be on our side
here, judging from what I and others have read, but none of us are
lawyers. I would be extremely surprised if Raisonance were to be of any
help.  They seem to be trapped in the '90s.  There doesn't seem to be
anything I can do to the patch that would address this.

Is this going to stop the show or not?


I vote that we include rlink support. If Raisonance complains, we can remove it.


5) Keeping rlink_speed_table.c prebuilt is deemed
fine, so no change needed there.  There was discussion of having a
separate area (eg: trunk/tools/{toolname}) for tools to do
the prebuilding ("maintainer-mode" or "super-maintainer-mode").
What is not clear is how critical that is to acceptance of this patch.
That may be cleared up in a reply to that email, though.
It seemed like a good idea for the future,
but it would affect a number of drivers, most of which I do not control or even necessarily understand. I could just unilaterally start putting stuff in tools/{toolname}, but that's going to be pretty goofy if nobody
else does it.  So is this a requirement or not?  The
rlink part of that could, of course, be changed when all the others are,
later on, when such a thing gets instituted.


Your options for this patch are:
- Do not include the tools
- Put the tools in trunk/tools/{toolname}

I would prefer the latter, but the former is acceptable as long as a the tools are included as a different patch at some point relatively soon.


--
Rick Altherr
[email protected]

"He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split it with him."
 -- Unsigned



Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development

Reply via email to