On 2017-02-22 11:21, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: > Ok. Could we discuss your NACK? Don't you like YAFFS just because it > is a non-upstream code or you do not like YAFFS as a file system? Because it's a very large chunk of non-upstream code.
> In first case I would like to note that this code is perfectly > isolated and it requires minimal maintaining. It is only require few > patches in order to integrate it to the kernel build process while the > main filesystem code remain as a set of files. I dig through yaffs > commit history and found that this code was changed only few times per > year in the past. At least the patches we had in the past were rather messy. > On the other hand since the device in subject is still on market we > could start yaffs upstreaming process and switch to upstream version > in the future. If you want to do that, that's fine by me. My guess is that getting the code in shape for that will take quite a few man-months of work. The code is not exactly pretty... I'd like to defer any attempt at bringing it back into LEDE until it is reasonably close to being accepted upstream. - Felix _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
