This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH]Add support for Open8 configuration to config.sub (from config.git)


Â
Exactly - I approached Ben Elliston with a requested patch to config.sub, and it
was approved.
Â
I searched the binutils archives for the instance of "an upstream commit of
config.sub by someone who lacks check-in privileges", and missed it, if it
exists.
Â
Given that I don't have checkin privileges (nor should I), I made a guess that
submitting the change as a patch was the most correct approach.
Â
I'm not complaining, mind you. There seems to be a great deal of "assumed
knowledge" on how to interact with the list - so far, I seem to have
(regrettably) made every mistake that can be made.
Â
Looking through the MAINTAINERS file gives some global context - is there more
extensive documentation, perhaps a wiki that I've missed, that gives more of the
day-to-day "etiquette"?
Â
I've really gotten off on the wrong foot, here, and all I'm trying to accomplish
is to contribute my binutils port for the Open8, so I can move on to finishing
my gcc port.
Â
Truly, I wish to conform to the recognized protocols - can someone mentor me,
off list, please?
Â
Also, I apologize for the clutter I've injected through my attempts.
Â
Kirk HaysÂ
Â
On April 4, 2011 at 9:05 AM Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:

> Re subject, you mean like it's committed in the upstream
> config sources?
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Kirk Hays wrote:
>
> > 2011-04-01 Kirk Hays <khays@hayshaus.com>
> >
> >Â Â Â Â Â* config.sub: From config.git: Add configuration support for Open8
> >Â Â Â Â ÂMCU softcore.
>
> If so, then this should be something like "Update from upstream
> sources." as you can see for previous imports. ;)
> (And it should be a full update, not just a patch for your port;
> I don't know if that's what's going on.)
>
> When the changelog instead mentions the specific change, it
> looks like a manual patch which is usually due to a
> misunderstanding of the process, but we've been over that.
>
> brgds, H-P


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]