[En-Nut-Discussion] RFC: Moving to github
harald.kipp at egnite.de
Wed Jul 22 20:57:58 CEST 2015
something else pops into my mind, when thinking about Nut/OS and Nathan.
On 21.07.2015 16:32, Nathan Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Harald Kipp <harald.kipp at egnite.de> wrote:
> SVN is more than adequate for a monotonic official version repository.
And we are missing a lot. May be your code is hacked in a bad manner,
because you never got the time to clean it up. May be it contains parts
that are not compatible with BSD. But...
You are regularly contributing interesting ideas, which regularly fade
away in all the noise and lack of time. If my assumption is correct,
that you have a modified local version containing some of the goodies
and if this is publishable (license-wise, not coding-beauty-wise), I'm
sure, your Git repository would attract many of us. The thing is, that
this code has been tested and proofed to run at least on that specific
hardware (possibly requiring a specific compiler version). Anyway, a
working example is much more valuable to me than any theoretical design.
!!!!!! Oh dear! Modified Nut/OSes all the way!
Well... I won't care, but enjoy studying your mods during a long weekend
and forget about new user confusions.
Here is another one:
I have an advanced and portable Internet radio application, which
requires a modified Nut/OS 4.10. I won't publish it, because I can't
officially add these mods to the 4.10 branch and it would take too much
effort to implement it in the trunk. Offering this application at
Github with the old modified Nut/OS may attract users looking for a
radio and don't care about the underlying OS.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh dear! Another modified version! That will be the
Really? I'd buy and old devel board on ebay, flash the hex file and
listen to the music, convinced, that I have all schematics and all the
source code, just in case. May be some people dig a bit more and become
new Nut/OS users.
More information about the En-Nut-Discussion