RE: [avr-libc-dev] Patches for 1.7.1?

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden On
> Behalf Of Ruud Vlaming
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:29 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: Per Arnold Blaasmo; Boyapati, Anitha
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Patches for 1.7.1?
> 
> On Thursday 24 March 2011, Per Arnold Blaasmo wrote:
> > You guys must remember that these patches is the one Atmel currently
> > uses in the toolchain built for AVR Studio 5.
> >
> > It is not the official avr-libc patches.
> > The avr-libc might or might not accept these patches in the future and
> > make a new version of avr-libc with these patches. Atmel hope the
> > project will want to use them.
> 
> Good point! Would it be an idea to introduce a naming convention so
> that is clear to anyone? So instead of
> 
>   40-avr-libc-1.7.1-xmega32X1.patch
> 
> we would have:
> 
>   40-avr-libc-1.7.1-atmel-xmega32X1.patch
> 
> and when the official one comes out:
> 
>   40-avr-libc-1.7.1-official-xmega32X1.patch
> 
> These patches could be identical when it is
> adopted as such by the developers in charge.
> But it could also be a further improved one.

I think this is adding some needless overhead. In reality there is not much 
time between the avr-libc patches that are used in any toolchain release and 
getting them accepted into avr-libc. In fact, most of the time, the patches get 
into the avr-libc release before the toolchain distribution release.



> This would solve:
> 
> > Atmel will always be in front of the community project internally so
> > Atmel will probably always have patches to the latest public version.
> 

Not really. It has always been this and it has never been a problem before.