[lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] The future of lwIP...

[Leon Woestenberg]

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.]