On 03/06/2011 12:28 PM, Michal Soltys wrote:> Hi
>
> I was thniking about that chaindev branch I see slowly
> rotting in my git - and I was wondering: would it be
> acceptable to change it from "replace existing
> chain.c32" to "provide alternative altchain.c32" ?
> The rationale for such request:
>
> - chaindev resides in its own directory under com32,
> so there're no conflicts possible
>
> - the dependency on disklib is trivial to solve - just
> move disklib.{c,h} (which is de-facto used only by chain,
> and consists of functions moved outside original
> chain.c) to the chaindev subdir; any further swaps (e.g.
> towards core disk functions) / backporting would be
> a trivial matter too
>
> - the code would be easily available for others to
> experiment with (use, patch, comment). I haven't had
> any problems presonally since my last commit, and
> it was tested pretty extensively
>
> - the documentation is also included, though it needs
> some un-engrishing and a bit more friendliness
>
Refresh my memory ... (yes, I know I have been the bottleneck in a lot
of things lately), but is this a 1:1 replacement (or superset), or is
this an incompatible change?
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.