Re: [lwip-members] RFC: ports

[Jani Monoses]

> We _can_ define an additional arch module and that would work, BUT there is
> no
> way to restrict access to that module on Savannah as we cannot run our own
> scripts.
> So, I much prefer hanging 'arch' under 'lwip' and giving arch contributors
> (full)
> CVS access rights.
Well since arch contributors would have full rights anyway what's the harm with 
a new module?

I'd personally like to checkout only what I need, cvs updates to update just 
what I need,
namespace pollution to stay at minimum (identifier names tend to repeat across 
ports indeed they must)
And another thing that counts :when making a release we don't have to make sure 
all arch's are uptodate
and well tested. Release the core only.If we release with archs included but 
they need updates form CVS
then it's not a 'real release' anyhow.

Jani.