Hi, In the discussion, there are two items, timing and menas of merging.
I am going to work as follows. Let me know comments. - The initial code is came from onnv-gate and is periodically mergerd from onnv-gate by mercurial. - The first target is set to b111b, now. Because it is a stable version. The next one is not set, yet. - The changesets of ARM are inserted into the series of onnv ones. It is not the same as onnv ones, but it is going to be syncronized. Thanks, Koji Uno Cyril Plisko 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. > >
