RTEMS developers list (rtems-devel)

Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsepius at rtems.org
Tue Nov 8 03:26:16 UTC 2011

On 11/07/2011 08:13 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Ralf Corsepius<ralf.corsepius at rtems.org>  wrote:
>> On 11/06/2011 10:33 PM, Thomas Doerfler (nt) wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Hello,
>>> these are a lot of lists for the (relatively) low traffic ;-) But
>>> nevertheless splitting the "rtems-users" list into two may make sense,
>>> simply to allow sorting mail traffic into different categories.
>> I do not see much sense in a *-devel and a *-users list split.
>>> What should not happen is that the RTEMS community is split into
>>> "users" and "developers".
>> Exactly.
> I don't think about adding an rtems-devel list as splitting the
> community. rtems-users is and should remain the "first contact" and
> primary communication path for all users and should be about helping
> people get their RTEMS projects working.
This makes sense in big projects, but doesn't make much sense in small 
projects such as RTEMS, with low traffic mailing lists and small numbers 
of participants.

> rtems-devel would be a place
> for experienced users and developers to discuss and plan development
> activities, including premature and preliminary design decisions that
> do not belong on the rtems-users list; We currently have no such
> place.
In my view, all such discussions belong on rtems-users, because RTEMS is 
development package addressing developers and is not an end-user package 
who is "klicking app buttons".

This had been the case ever since RTEMS existed and never had been a 
problem ever.

rtems-devel offers a solution to a problem, which does not exist.

>>> In the past I have seen many people starting
>>> as "users" step by step became "developers" since they needed new
>>> functionality for their projects. So we should make sure to encourage
>>> new users also to register for the "rtems-devel" mailing list.
>> What we need instead, is an "rtems-patches" list, where prospective
>> contributors can submit proposals and people with VCS write-permission can
>> review contributions.
> The rtems-devel subsumes such a list and with it we don't need an rtems-patches.
No. rtems-patches only topic would be reviews and discussing details of 
patches, not general discussions on long term plans and else.


More information about the users mailing list