[U-Boot-Users] Re: Revision COntrol, Patch Database -- was: Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[Jerry Van Baren]

Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> writes:
> 
>>Subversion is nice, but distributed repositories are essential to
>>me.
> 
> 
> http://www.gna.org/ might be a good choice. It supports GNU Arch (it's
> not hard since it doesn't require a specific server), it has a patch
> manager, bug tracker etc. (their web interface is Savane, a
> continuation of Savannah).
> 
> Using a distributed versions control software would be a real benefit
> for the contributors and the best available free tool seems to be GNU
> Arch.
> 
> Catalin

The Arch, Savane (which has its roots as a fork of SourceForge when they 
went closed source), and http://www.gna.org are good tips.  I've been 
perusing the pages and they look really good.

On the Savane/SourceForge front, currently u-boot is only using 
SourceForge as a public CVS repository.  The SourceForge software is 
MUCH more capable than that.  I would strongly recommend looking at the 
Rockbox project as an example of a very good use of SourceForge's 
capabilities.

Rockbox has a home page at
   http://www.rockbox.org/

An interesting technique is that they take the SourceForge information 
and reformat it for their web pages.  In particular, see their patch 
page which separates the patches by category (catagories are supported 
by SourceForge).  This is very nicely done.
   http://www.rockbox.org/patches.shtml

The underlying Rockbox SourceForge page is:
   http://sourceforge.net/projects/rockbox/
If you click on the "bugs" and "patches" and "feature request" links, 
you will see lots of good stuff (especially patches).  I'm a little 
skeptical about bug reports and feature requests since (in my 
experience) they tend to be filled in and ignored thereafter.

Patch sets, however, are very useful for distributed development.  You 
can upload a new patch (very useful) and have a discussion on the patch 
online (list-based discussion is arguably a better forum).  The patch 
author can retract, update, etc. the patch.  Others can watch the patch 
and apply it to their system if necessary.  Eventually, Wolfgang & Co. 
would apply the patch to the mainline, at which time the patch gets 
closed.  All good stuff.

I don't see any major use of the patch support on the gna.org web site. 
  The only sort of useful example I found is the "eagle usb" project.
   https://gna.org/patch/?group=eagleusb

gvb