On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2014-11-23 14:30 -0500, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> > Components themselves should be very general. 'RTEMS', 'Build', 'Testing',
>> > 'BSP', 'CPU' etc.
>> >
With the 'arch' field, and ability to tag (e.g. on a bsp name), I
think we only need "RT
On 2014-11-23 14:30 -0500, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > Components themselves should be very general. 'RTEMS', 'Build', 'Testing',
> > 'BSP', 'CPU' etc.
> >
> OK, if we define some tags and scope them right, this can work. I
> don't like the idea of a free-text field though. Can tags be a
> drop-down l
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2014-11-23 10:28 -0500, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
>> RTEMS (rtems.git) components:
>> * One component for each architecture family; for problems that affect
>> those archs or their bsps
>
> We have a 'tag cloud' that can be viewed here: https:
On 2014-11-23 10:28 -0500, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> RTEMS (rtems.git) components:
> * One component for each architecture family; for problems that affect
> those archs or their bsps
We have a 'tag cloud' that can be viewed here: https://devel.rtems.org/tags
both tickets and wiki pages can be mark
Hi,
TL;DR: Trac tickets are in a good state. We need to close or bump the
4.11 milestones before release. I'd like to discuss a proposal to
organize the Trac Tickets better.
One of the appeals of Trac is that it is simple.There are a six ways
I'd like to see our use of trac ticket
