Re: [RFC PATCH 05/28] cli: lil: Rename some functions to be more like TCL

Simon Glass
2021-07-05T21:02:43Z

Hi Tom,

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 12:51, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 07:58:18PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Dear Sean,
> >
> > In message <d808990b-623d-d962-c7d6-e40063bc5dab@gmail.com> you wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is your intent to create a fork of this in U-Boot?
> > >
> > > Yes. I believe some of the major additions I have made (especially "[RFC
> > > PATCH 21/28] cli: lil: Add a distinct parsing step") would not be
> > > accepted by upstream.
> >
> > Ouch...
> >
> > > > Could we not update things upstream, at least as an option, to avoid
> > > > carrying these patches?
> > >
> > > For some of the smaller patches, that may be possible. However, I am not
> > > a fan of the major amount of ifdefs that Hush has. For something as core
> > > as a shell, I think we should be free to make changes as we see fit
> > > without worrying about how it will affect a hypothetical backport.
> >
> > I'm afraind I cannot understand your thinking.
> >
> > You complain that the existing port of hus has a number of severe
> > limitations or bugs which have long been fixed upstream, but cannot
> > be easily fixed in U-Boot because we essentially created an
> > unmaintained fork - and as a cure, you recommend to do the same
> > thing again, but this time intentionally and deliberately?
> >
> >
> > If you had not apparently already invested a lot of effort into this
> > thing I would assume you must be joking...
> >
> > To me such an approach is unacceptable.
>
> I think I want to try and address this. While with "hush" we have
> something that's in heavy active development outside of U-Boot, with LIL
> we have something that's mature and "done". Tracking an active outside
> development is HARD and requires constant resync. Look at the last few
> LIL releases. That could be easily re-worked in to our fork if needed.
> I see that as a positive, not a negative.

Yes I wondered about that, since hush has been in busybox, an active
project, all these years. I think this is a good point and perhaps
means that forking it should not be too much of a concern. Still, if
we can send some things upstream, we should.

Regards,
Simon