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

[Rod Boyce]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:57, David Figueroa wrote:
> I also want to put my vote for a very small
> group with write access.  Let Adam select from people he trusts.  This is a
> TREMENDOUS responsability, not to be taken lightly.
Agreed keep the number of people small and focused.

>
>                               I also vote to keep the lwip development
> focused on the "light weight" premise on which it was created.  Maybe the
> gig eth should be a different cvs module that uses parts of the core?

BUT one of the great things about CVS is it has the ability to branch code 
streams and even mearge back if wanted and agreed.  While I think the gig eth 
should be keped ralitivly seperate maybe Paul sould get his own branch if he 
wants then everybody can see what he is doing as I beleive he has done some 
great work on the insides of LwIP which I would not want to see franmented to 
far if that is at all possible.

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

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.

This is just my opinion what does anybody else think?

Regards,
Rod

[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]