On 9/1/09 12:04 AM, "Øyvind Harboe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 2) One possible process improvement that I believe makes sense is to start
>> enforcing a rule that authors of new configuration files must include a
>> minimal comment header at the top of the file that specifies the exact
>> hardware/debugger combination used. The SAM-ICE (J-link) debugger I am
>> using for example has a number of internal quirks that may not exist in
>> other brands and vice-versa.
>
> To enforce rules on target scripts, we first need to have some rules
> to enforce against.
>
> I suggest that you start writing up a patch against the OpenOCD documentation
> on requirements for target config scripts.
>
> The other problem I have with this is that I want as many scripts as
> possible, even if they are crummy....
>
> Perhaps we could mark or name scripts that don't follow the
> rules as work-in-progress?
>
> I.e. either it needs to have all the right comments & features, or
> it needs a "work in progress" note at the top?
>
>
I can definitely see your perspective of trying to get as many configuration
files as possible. There is some truth to what you said earlier about
quantity over quality in the startup phase of any project.
In some ways it is not too much different then a dating site. If you only
have two singles signed up, getting additional people to subscribe to the
service may be difficult.
This idea I think has merit for the long term, but maybe leaving things
unchanged for now makes better sense.
Gary
Gary Carlson
Gary Carlson, MSEE
Principal Engineer
Carlson-Minot Inc.
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
