From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:02:42 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [git commit] CHANGES: add #163 + #473 In-Reply-To: <20090724110230.3f51597a@surf> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Fri\, 24 Jul 2009 11\:02\:30 +0200") References: <20090724055230.2080B77660@busybox.osuosl.org> <20090724110230.3f51597a@surf> Message-ID: <87zlauutcd.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> Le Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:51:16 +0200, Thomas> Peter Korsgaard a ?crit : >> + #163: Xtensa architecture port Thomas> I might wrong or be missing something, but I haven't seen the Thomas> corresponding commits for this (maybe patches too large for Thomas> the list ?). Yes, they are committed and I haven't seen the mails either - seems like the commit hook has issues when I push multiple changes at once. (Or it might be something else, I'm having mail and hw problems today). Thomas> But if it was really committed, I was quite worried by the Thomas> complexity added by the ? overlay ? mechanism proposed by Thomas> this new architecture port, and that a public discussion on Thomas> this new mechanism could have been interesting to see if it's Thomas> the best solution, if it's the way we want Buildroot to go Thomas> forward, etc. The patches were discussed on the list when they were first submitted, afaik without much comments. the xtensa people have been asking about it several times, and I finally promised to commit after 2009.05 was released: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2009-May/027503.html I agree that the xtensa stuff is "special" in various ways, but I think it's more productive to get it into git and then work on getting it cleaned up more, instead of having it gather dust in bugzilla. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard