From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 22:16:41 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] RFC: toolchain wrapper for external toolchains In-Reply-To: <20110508190135.0b9df312@surf> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Sun, 8 May 2011 19:01:35 +0200") References: <1304433655-1629-1-git-send-email-jacmet@sunsite.dk> <20110508190135.0b9df312@surf> Message-ID: <87r589j6c6.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: Hi, Thomas> I am not entirely happy with how things went with this patch Thomas> set. It touches a fairly major mechanism in the external Thomas> toolchain support, and it has been committed without an Thomas> official Acked-by from the most active contributor in this Thomas> area. I understand your frustration and agree that this could have been handled better. Thomas> Moreover, it has been committed only two days after the Thomas> proposal, a duration which is very short for the other Thomas> contributors to take the time to test the patches and give Thomas> their opinion. This is also very short compared to the amount Thomas> of time many other contributions have been waiting for being Thomas> merged. For example, have a look at the patch set I contributed Thomas> on April, 2nd Thomas> (http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2011-April/042309.html), Thomas> which is also something that has been discussed during the Thomas> FOSDEM meeting. Yes. The config option rename is naturally massively intrusive, so I didn't want to rush to apply it (E.G. see the recent discussion about differing between what the toolchain has for ext toolchains and what we want to enable - E.G. ipv6 support) Thomas> And finally, I am also unhappy because these changes were Thomas> broken in a basic way: the first test I did with a basic Thomas> CodeSourcery external toolchain failed (see the patch I just Thomas> sent). I don't, by far, claim to always post well-tested and Thomas> perfect patches. However, added to the very quick Thomas> post-to-commit delay and the absence of real ACK from other Thomas> contributors, it makes me a little bit unhappy. I agree. I rushed things a bit too much because of other real life issues and the fact that we're already late for -rc1. Sorry about this. Thomas> In the future, would it be possible to leave more time between Thomas> post and commit, for such major infrastructure changes ? Sure. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard