Cyril's experience in this regard is well-founded. We know, we lived through the PowerPC port. R&B
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Che Kristo <che at opensolaris.org> wrote: > Not that I have such particular experience but Cyrils position makes better > sense to me, the thought of a constantly behind, lesser loved architecture > doesn't sound too good to me. Perhaps take a way at how NetBSD treat their > ARM port and learn from their experience? > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Cyril Plisko <cyril.plisko at > mountall.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Koji Uno<Koji.Uno at sun.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Many changes for ARM are contained in common code. >> > It is possible to happen conflicts by every changeset >> > of onnv. >> >> Possible - yes, frequent - no. Moreover - each time you hit the >> conflict it is a sign you may want to revisit that particular part of >> *arm* code, because it can be that some more general framework is >> changing and it calls for all the architecture specific code to be >> modified as well. >> >> > >> > So it is difficult to follow the series of onnv changeset. >> >> IMHO, it is significantly more difficult to do it the other way. I am >> speaking out of my experience with PPC port. >> >> I realize that you are the custodian of ARM code right now, so other >> community members may have little influence on how things are done, >> but I thought I'd rather voice my opinion now. >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Cyril >> _______________________________________________ >> osarm-dev mailing list >> osarm-dev at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/osarm-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > osarm-dev mailing list > osarm-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/osarm-dev > > -- http://bbrv.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/osarm-dev/attachments/20090827/5a164846/attachment.html>
