Re: Angled-brackets vs. quotes in #include directives

On 4 Nov 2016, at 16:34, Christopher Collins wrote: > Hello all, > > We've been a bit inconsistent with our use of angled-brackets vs. quotes > in #include directives. There is a simple rule for this one: use > quotes for user headers; angled-brackets for headers supplied by the >

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed changes to mynewt website

The changes look good to me too. Just a suggestion, for the “Security from the Start” section, perhaps a diagram that illustrates the product lifecycle, i.e., from development through deployment. That being said, I’m not sure how to show that the support is built in to the ecosystem - I think

Angled-brackets vs. quotes in #include directives

Hello all, We've been a bit inconsistent with our use of angled-brackets vs. quotes in #include directives. There is a simple rule for this one: use quotes for user headers; angled-brackets for headers supplied by the implementation. "Implementation" is a technical term meaning the combination

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed changes to mynewt website

Got it - about the tech docs release. How about the website changes? I was proposing we merge that into master for beta. +1 from me, they look great. Sterling

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed changes to mynewt website

Hi Sterling, Thanks! My comments are inline. > On Nov 4, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Sterling Hughes wrote: > > Hi Aditi, > > On 4 Nov 2016, at 12:50, aditi hilbert wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Documentation update is going to be a big part of the Apache Mynewt 1.0 >> release since

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed changes to mynewt website

Hi Aditi, On 4 Nov 2016, at 12:50, aditi hilbert wrote: Hi all, Documentation update is going to be a big part of the Apache Mynewt 1.0 release since it is featuring several additions and enhancements. I would like to propose some changes to the landing page and additional links on the

Re: os_events manamgnent

Thanks! I was not sure about responding. Will > On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Christopher Collins wrote: > > (responding to Runtime only) > > I will reply to Wayne's email this morning, and follow it up with a > message to dev regarding the recent eventq changes. I just

Re: os_events manamgnent

(responding to Runtime only) I will reply to Wayne's email this morning, and follow it up with a message to dev regarding the recent eventq changes. I just wanted to send this note so no one spends time writing a response. Thanks, Chris On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:08:50PM +, Wayne Keenan

Re: os_events manamgnent

sorry for the typo'ed subject and also these corrections are required: In the first post example this line: my_event(_EVENT_QUEUE, my_event); should be: os_eventq_put(_EVENT_QUEUE, my_event); In the second post example this line: rc = my_event(_EVENT_QUEUE, OS_EVENT_T_PERUSER+1, arg );

os_events manamgnent

Hi, I had to move from the commonly found 'statically allocated' os_event usage pattern to something dynamic. This is what I'm using: // Post event: struct os_event* my_event = (struct os_event *)os_memblock_get(_mbuf_mpool); if (!my_event) { // TODO: scream loudly

inc/src search paths, Git Submodules & Build Pre/Post Script

Hi, If I add a (3rd party) git repo to my app/package is it possible to specify in my pkg.yml which folders in the folder with the git repo are used for include and source and which should be ignored? I'm guessing the following is a WishList item, but, once my package is a git repo itself and it