[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP...
From: |
Leon Woestenberg |
Subject: |
[lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP... |
Date: |
Wed, 08 Jan 2003 23:48:31 -0000 |
Hi,
> I suggest that maybe we should have at least to branches but possibly
more.
> 1. LwIP as it stands at the moment.
> 2. Gig ethernet branch is added to the list of peopel with write access
>
Yes, we should use a _few_ branches IMHO:
- A "feature-frozen" branch, which only accepts fixes.
- An experimental branch, where new features are added, or architecture, or
API change.
- specialized branches, but only as long as maintained up-to-date with the
lwIP main branch.
> I still like the idea of diffrent TCP sequence numbering and memory
allocation
> chosen by compile time irectives but we maybe need another method to
access
> wildly diverging streams of code possibly under the name.
>
I do not see why we would see _wildy_ diversing streams of code. The goal of
lwIP is
to provide a interoperable TCP/IP stack for embedded use. Let's keep that
goal and
simpy focus on improving it.
Leon.
[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]
- [lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP..., Rod Boyce, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP...,
Leon Woestenberg <=
- [lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP..., Felipe Massia Pereira, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP..., Paul Sheer, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP..., Rod Boyce, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP..., Leon Woestenberg, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP..., Felipe Massia Pereira, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP..., Paul Sheer, 2003/01/09