On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:12:36 + (UTC)
Nicolas Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > u-boot-at91 (Atmel ARM) Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard
> Ulf, we do not lose interest ! We simply do not have the
> opportunity to rebase and test our work against the latest developments
> for
> On Thursday 20 March 2008, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Ulf Samuelsson atmel.com> writes:
>> > > Too bad. I think it would be a good idea, if "they" would try to work
>> > > with the "official" U-Boot community again. Now with the custodian
>> > > framework in place, some problems of the past should
On Thursday 20 March 2008, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Ulf Samuelsson atmel.com> writes:
> > > Too bad. I think it would be a good idea, if "they" would try to work
> > > with the "official" U-Boot community again. Now with the custodian
> > > framework in place, some problems of the past should be sol
Le jeudi 20 mars 2008 à 17:36 +, Nicolas Ferre a écrit :
> Ulf Samuelsson atmel.com> writes:
>
> > > Too bad. I think it would be a good idea, if "they" would try to work
> > > with
> > > the "official" U-Boot community again. Now with the custodian framework
> > > in
> > > place, some p
Ulf Samuelsson atmel.com> writes:
> > Too bad. I think it would be a good idea, if "they" would try to work with
> > the "official" U-Boot community again. Now with the custodian framework in
> > place, some problems of the past should be solved.
>
> I 'bcc' our own "Jean-Christophe" (Zettel)
Ulf Samuelsson atmel.com> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >> > Here a short announcement about a change in the U-Boot ARM
> >> > custodianship:
> >> >
> >> > Since the ARM platform is so broad and has multiple vendor
> >> > specific "sub-architectures" it seemed
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> >> Would it not be better if the Atmel ARM was handled by the Atmel AT91
>> >> Product line
>> >
>> > Could be, I really don't know. I don't remember seeing Atmel ARM patches
>> > posted or reviewed by other Atmel than yourself.
>>
>> They were
On Wednesday 19 March 2008, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >> Would it not be better if the Atmel ARM was handled by the Atmel AT91
> >> Product line
> >
> > Could be, I really don't know. I don't remember seeing Atmel ARM patches
> > posted or reviewed by other Atmel than yourself.
>
> They were sent in
> On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> > Here a short announcement about a change in the U-Boot ARM custodianship:
>> >
>> > Since the ARM platform is so broad and has multiple vendor
>> > specific "sub-architectures" it seemed necessary to add new U-Boot
>> > custodian branches for t
On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > Here a short announcement about a change in the U-Boot ARM custodianship:
> >
> > Since the ARM platform is so broad and has multiple vendor
> > specific "sub-architectures" it seemed necessary to add new U-Boot
> > custodian branches for those ar
> Here a short announcement about a change in the U-Boot ARM custodianship:
>
> Since the ARM platform is so broad and has multiple vendor
> specific "sub-architectures" it seemed necessary to add new U-Boot custodian
> branches for those architectures. Fortunately we had some volunteers. Here
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Here a short announcement about a change in the U-Boot ARM custodianship:
>
> Since the ARM platform is so broad and has multiple vendor
> specific "sub-architectures" it seemed necessary to add new U-Boot custodian
> branches for those architectures.
Here a short announcement about a change in the U-Boot ARM custodianship:
Since the ARM platform is so broad and has multiple vendor
specific "sub-architectures" it seemed necessary to add new U-Boot custodian
branches for those architectures. Fortunately we had some volunteers. Here
the list:
13 matches
Mail list logo
