[openrisc] Re: ports to 2.96 and 3.1 versions

["Marko Mlinar" <markom@opencores.org>]

> I guess the main one is this, can a new port be accepted in stage 3,
> if it is is clean enough in how it affects other ports?  Off hand, I
> don't see much harm in it, other than incomplete work being in the
> tree.  If we mandate it only goes in as last as stage2, stage3 is
> there to put the finishing touches on the port.  Or, we could accept
> it as late as stage3 because it doesn't affect other ports.
> 
> Personally, I'm happy to let the release manager make the call how
> they may, and live with the decision and after we hear more about why
> the process is broken, then decide to change it.  If a release manager
> wanted to document his ideas about new ports and phase 2 or 3 on the
> web site, I think that would be reasonable and help set expectations
> of contributors.  If the steering committee wanted to set policy (and
> document it on the web page), that would seem to be reasonable.  I
> don't see that this _needs_ to be done however.

Like Damjan said, we have very isolated port, and it should not affect
others in any way. And yes, we would rather have an official port, even
if we have to submit some patches later.

best regards,
Marko


--
To unsubscribe from openrisc mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml