On 03/09/18 14:07, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
On 24/08/2018 03:51, Sebastian Huber wrote:
I would like to propose a procedure for architecture/BSP removal since I think
the RTEMS master carries
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 24/08/2018 03:51, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> I would like to propose a procedure for architecture/BSP removal since I
>>> think the RTEMS master carries to much historic ballast around
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 24/08/2018 03:51, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> I would like to propose a procedure for architecture/BSP removal since I
>> think the RTEMS master carries to much historic ballast around with no
>> active user base.
>
> For example? We have a
On 24/08/2018 03:51, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> I would like to propose a procedure for architecture/BSP removal since I
> think the RTEMS master carries to much historic ballast around with no active
> user base.
For example? We have a history of following gcc. Are you proposing we move away
from
Hello,
I would like to propose a procedure for architecture/BSP removal since I think
the RTEMS master carries to much historic ballast around with no active user
base.
Once the release branch is created, an announcement is placed on the devel and
users mailing lists and the web site news. The
