Gedare Bloom started a new discussion: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/582#note_126511 I don't think this is the right approach to take. I'd maybe discuss it at the Issue #5282 or the newer #5294 At any rate, this MR seems a little premature. We haven't really even agreed to requirements or a design yet. I appreciate the sketch of an implementation, but to be honest it is not that useful since this MR is basically unreviewable in the code aspects, and one of the critical steps (using git tags) is not part of the MR. With many 3rd party sources, this approach might work, but I think it is the wrong thing to do with HAL for a few reasons: * Versioning is unclear to me. Who decides what/when to bump, and what version we include in a release? Do we provide a path for users to select a different (newer/older) version of a HAL? * HALs are usually quite large and often generated code from the vendors. I suspect this is going to introduce a lot of churn and bloat in our repo, especially importing HAL code for boards we don't support. There are more reasons, but I think it is better to discuss it in an Issue. -- View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/582#note_126511 You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.
_______________________________________________ bugs mailing list bugs@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs
