>The cover letter says that this implements version 1.0 of the spec, this sounds like it doesn't.
Yeah, sorry about the confusion. Yes, the patch is actually for v0.8 but as you've correctly mentioned v0.8 has not so much differences to v1.0.
> Instead of constantly removing and re-adding the code
I was talking about only one removing the existing code and replacing it with current patches and then making updates on top of them.
>Do you mind fixing that and addressing the other comments/concerns
Sure
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 9:14 PM Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 9:05 PM Alexey Baturo <baturo.alexey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Hi, any change from v0.8 to v1.0?
> > Not in the patches that were sent. I'd still suggest applying a step-by-step approach with cleaning up old code and establishing the new mechanisms first and then updating the code to match the spec 100%. Also I heard Martin has some arch compliance tests for J-ext somewhere.
>
> The cover letter says that this implements version 1.0 of the spec,
> this sounds like it doesn't.
>
> Also, it's better to make the changes on top of the current code.
> Instead of constantly removing and re-adding the code. Which is then
> hard to review. Especially as I'm guessing there isn't a huge
> difference between v0.8 and v1.0.
>
> > @Alistair Francis @liwei does this approach sound reasonable to you?
> >
> > >Also, this needs another rebase
> > Sure, no problem at all. I'll rebase and re-send them later today.
Sorry, it did apply correctly! That was my mistake.
But this series generates a warning. Do you mind fixing that and
addressing the other comments/concerns
Alistair
>
> Thanks. Can you be very clear which version of the spec you have
> developed and tested against as well.
>
> Alistair