On May 8, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Magnus Lundin wrote:
- Making every nontrivial patch pass through a community process
will
slow development to a halt, this community does not work like that. We
have more priciple discussions than discussion about actual technical
merit. How many here do actually
I will not reply to specific comments but rather make some more general
statements that hopefully are relevant, I know that this somewhat
overlap the solicitations for process.
- During all of this I and Öyvind have been communicating patches,
error reporting and suggestions. He has handled th
On Friday 08 May 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> Even assuming he used a branch, there is no way for any one person can
> test architectural changes in one.
Not so. The testing will be limited ... but that's a good
reason to use branches, in whatever SCM is used.
> Stuff would be broken in the trunk
On May 8, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
Breaking the trunk only causes problems because _everyone_ is using it
instead of regular releases. That is the maintainers fault to be
sure;
this would not be a huge problem if everyone had their attention
focused
on a release branch.
[sn
On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 17:05 +0200, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> Zach Welch wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 13:49 +0200, Magnus Lundin wrote:
[snip]
> >> Zach Welch wrote:
> >>
> > [snip]
> >
> >>> * Are you _certain_ the current bugs being experienced cannot be the
> >>> result of other bugs t
On Friday 08 May 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
That's what I was going to send. ;)
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-
> It's called "quoting out of context". Your editing of the thread
> changes the tone of the thread for anyone that jumps in at the middle.
> If you are doing this on purpose, it is dishonest (and flabbergasting).
> If you are doing it out of ignorance, you should be aware of the
> consequences an
On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 20:08 +0200, Igor Skochinsky wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 19:19, Zach Welch wrote:
> [...]
> > I apologize for hitting Reply instead of Reply-all (and the for my
> > mailing system for delaying the second message just minutes later).
> > Clearly, I have no int
> As for the topic, it's nice that Øyvind decided to stop for now, but
> in the meantime we have broken code in head.
What did you have in mind?
(performance regression is known, will be addressed next week,
and there is possibly an assert lurking, but other than that there
are no known regressio
Hi All,
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 19:19, Zach Welch wrote:
[...]
> I apologize for hitting Reply instead of Reply-all (and the for my
> mailing system for delaying the second message just minutes later).
> Clearly, I have no intention of shying away from the public eye.
Sorry for derailing the thre
On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 11:10 -0400, Chris Zimman wrote:
> > No arguments here. You cut out the part of my reply where I agreed
> > with you on this exact point. The execution was far from ideal.
>
> If you already said it, my not reposting it does not in any way invalidate
> it.
It's called "qu
On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 10:34 -0400, Chris Zimman wrote:
> > Which was last updated when? I will make it a priority to grok this
> > document and regurgitate anything useful that I find to the list, but I
> > just want to point out that the lack of up-to-date backing
> > documentation raises questio
>> I expect the functionality to be re-implemented in a way that the
>> community will support, even if that means adding back nearly identical
>> code. If I were in Øyvind's shoes, I would rather see the in_handler
>> functionality re-implemented cleanly than just put it back as it was.
>>
> True
> No arguments here. You cut out the part of my reply where I agreed
> with you on this exact point. The execution was far from ideal.
If you already said it, my not reposting it does not in any way invalidate
it.
> I am not advocating either way; however, you failed to address my point
> about
Zach Welch wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 13:49 +0200, Magnus Lundin wrote:
>
>> I'll give it a go, and I do think I understand what is going on under
>> the hood in some detail.
>>
>
> Thank you for providing your explanations. This has been the most
> constructive attempt to address the
> Which was last updated when? I will make it a priority to grok this
> document and regurgitate anything useful that I find to the list, but I
> just want to point out that the lack of up-to-date backing
> documentation raises questions about the objectivity of anyone's current
opinions.
> I beli
On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 13:49 +0200, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> I'll give it a go, and I do think I understand what is going on under
> the hood in some detail.
Thank you for providing your explanations. This has been the most
constructive attempt to address the technical issues, and I appreciate
your
I'll give it a go, and I do think I understand what is going on under
the hood in some detail.
Also there are a lot of cleanup to be done.
And the documentation about some finer technical points is somewhere
between bad, nonexsistant or can be found in Dominics thesis paper.
Zach Welch wrote:
> To be fair, Øyvind needs to address some similarly pointed questions:
>
> * Were these changes discussed on the list before your patches were
> committed, or did it arise as a consequence of them? I do not remember
> seeing prior notice, but I understand less than all of the traffic on
> this li
Hi all,
I did not think I needed to get involved in this thread, but I feel that
my contribution at this point might be to help resolve the situation.
I ask that the community actually give Øyvind a chance to finish his
work with in_handler. His opponents are shouting on the list without
provid
20 matches
Mail list logo
