[rtems commit] New.

[Thomas Doerfler]

Hi,

Am 03.08.2012 16:44, schrieb Gedare Bloom:
> I'd say let's wrap this up, but we have no formal way that I know of
> to make a decision about this.

you are right, there is no formal way to decide this. Anyway I vote to
remove the questionable commits from the git repo and discuss the pros
and cons before any further change in the git repo regarding the
"auto*"-generated files is to be applied.

wkr,

Thomas.

> 
> -Gedare
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com> wrote:
>> On 07/26/2012 10:05 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> why do we all have this single commits with this simple "New." commit
>>> message?
>>>    If I had added the generated files, then I would have added them all in
>>> a
>>> single commit.  Before this I would have placed this commit on a private
>>> branch
>>> for review.
>>>
>>> You work now on a release branch.  I don't think there was sufficient
>>> discussion about this change.  As far as I am aware you are the only
>>> person in
>>> favor of adding the generated files.
>>>
>>> This is not a simple change.  It adds a lot of files.  It changes also a
>>> practice in RTEMS that was there for several years now.  That is no
>>> generated
>>> files in the repository (one exception is the preinstall.am).
>>>
>> It also impacts at least the following:
>>
>> + user documentation, tutorials, wikis, etc.
>> + bandwidth requirements for rtems.org and users
>> + disk space requirements for rtems.org and users
>>
>> This change could have happened any time in the past 15 years.
>> Projects using every other source code control system have
>> at one time placed generated files in their tree. We stuck with
>> not doing it and built up years of practice expecting a bootstrap.
>>
>> I personally do not care whether they are in or out technically.
>> That is a community decision.
>>
>> What I do care about is the utter abuse of process and community
>> reflected in how this major change was committed with no discussion,
>> review, patch squashing, etc.
>>
>> I am sorry Ralf but this is another example where I have to question
>> your judgement on knowing when it is OK to make a change with
>> or without discussion. You have repeatedly thrust controversial
>> changes on the project with no discussion.  If anyone else had done
>> this, you would have publicly flogged them.
>>
>> --
>> Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research&   Development
>> joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
>> Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
>>     Support Available             (256) 722-9985
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtems-devel mailing list
>> rtems-devel at rtems.org
>> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
> 


-- 
--------------------------------------------
embedded brains GmbH
Thomas Doerfler
Obere Lagerstrasse 30
D-82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: Thomas.Doerfler at embedded-brains.de
Phone: +49-89-18908079-2
Fax: +49-89-18908079-9
PGP: Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.