From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 19:01:35 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] RFC: toolchain wrapper for external toolchains In-Reply-To: References: <1304433655-1629-1-git-send-email-jacmet@sunsite.dk> Message-ID: <20110508190135.0b9df312@surf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Thu, 5 May 2011 23:44:04 +0200 Peter Korsgaard wrote: > I didn't hear any negative comments either on the list or on IRC, so > I've committed this. I am not entirely happy with how things went with this patch set. It touches a fairly major mechanism in the external toolchain support, and it has been committed without an official Acked-by from the most active contributor in this area. Moreover, it has been committed only two days after the proposal, a duration which is very short for the other contributors to take the time to test the patches and give their opinion. This is also very short compared to the amount of time many other contributions have been waiting for being merged. For example, have a look at the patch set I contributed on April, 2nd (http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-April/042309.html), which is also something that has been discussed during the FOSDEM meeting. And finally, I am also unhappy because these changes were broken in a basic way: the first test I did with a basic CodeSourcery external toolchain failed (see the patch I just sent). I don't, by far, claim to always post well-tested and perfect patches. However, added to the very quick post-to-commit delay and the absence of real ACK from other contributors, it makes me a little bit unhappy. In the future, would it be possible to leave more time between post and commit, for such major infrastructure changes ? Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com