[En-Nut-Discussion] Update-Flood over now?

[Ulrich Prinz]

Hi Harald!

Am 20.06.2011 10:40, schrieb Harald Kipp:
> Hi Ulrich,
> 
> 
> On 6/14/2011 11:59 PM, Ulrich Prinz wrote:
>> No that doesn't bother me, but what makes me a bit upset is, that there
>> again had been multiple files just been touched by _adding_ whitespace
>> at line endings...
> 
> Some time ago I used an editor plug-in, but that one removed extra
> whitespace automatically, mixing cosmetic commits with fixes. So I
> removed that tool again, trying to be as careful as possible not to
> introduce new trailing spaces. If that failed, I'm very, very sorry.
> Yeah, I know, I could change the editor...but...man is a creature of
> habit. (Correct translation?)
> 
We already discussed the need to run a _simple_ code beautifier.
But I agree, that we should separate bugfix/addon commits from
beautifying ones.

> I further agreed with Michael to apply his enhancements to the trunk, as
> they are targeted on application samples and some network stuff, which
> shouldn't collide with the cm3 branch. Did we overlook something?
> 
>> Ok, I'll add some improvements to eeprom and at24c driver and add a new
>> driver for the SHT21 temperature and humidity device from Sensirion.
>> SDP pressure sensor will follow.
> 
> Most useful, we do have hardware based on LPC1768 (Cortex-M3) and SHT21.
> 
It is already in the CM3 branch. Just need to move it over as it is
independent from Cortex, I hope (there might be a small dependency cause
by the bus oriented I2C design).

>> But I need to split the work a bit cause actually there is project
>> pressure and then I'll have some vacation time... really, I need it :)
> 
> 
> Due to my other tasks, I'm not sure, how much time it will take to apply
> some final fixes. One idea is to create a branch for the next stable
> _now_ and apply the missing fixes to that branch and the trunk
> concurrently later. Actually no big deal, because only a very few
> changes are waiting for the next stable. That would immediately allow us
> to merge the current branches back into the trunk. I think we should do
> so. Any objections?
> 
I will have some vacation near future, so I'll not move those things in
the next two days.

> Regarding version numbers: Although a large number of changes had been
> applied, I still prefer using 4.10 for the next stable, reserving the
> major revision 5 for the next one, which will definitely have more
> impact on existing applications.
> 
Yep :) It will!

Best regards, Ulrich