[Bug 1001550] STM32 F2 and STM3220G-EVAL / STM3240G-EVAL contribution from eCosCentric

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs dot ecos dot sourceware dot org]

Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001550

--- Comment #32 from Jonathan Larmour <jifl@ecoscentric.com> 2012-04-16 15:42:05 BST ---
[Ignore comment #31 which got submitted prematurely]

(In reply to comment #30)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> 
> > I am committing this, but let me know in this bug about any issues in any of
> > the patches, and I'll deal with them.
> 
> Jifl, as a general point, can you give the other eCos maintainers an
> opportunity to comment on patches of this size/significance before check-in
> please?

That isn't the way we've operated before, nor is it the way other FSF projects
operate including GDB and GCC. Unless of course the changes are controversial
or the maintainer has some uncertainty about them, or they extensively change
core code. Not when the changes are within the maintainer's own area of
competence anyway... for example, if I wanted to make non-trivial changes to
the configtool, I would expect to put them through review certainly.

Also with many substantial patches, it is sometimes much clearer to see what is
going on by actually looking at the end result, not the diff, and IME having to
apply (fixing up any bit-rot causing failed patches) and then revert all the
patches locally is a pain and impedes review.

The onus is naturally on the maintainer responsible to fix up any issues
resulting responsively, which absolutely could result in the patch being
reverted if needed. And that's the thing: we can always revert a patch if it
turns out to be more controversial than intended.

But in general I don't think we should be putting extra barriers in the way of
improvements from any maintainers, and that applies to everyone, not just me.

Jifl

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.