Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:45:07 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Murray Stokely <murray@FreeBSD.org> Cc: luigi@FreeBSD.org, doc-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en/projects/ideas ideas.xml Message-ID: <20070311204507.2b68b7ea@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <200703110722.l2B7MLPN084223@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200703110722.l2B7MLPN084223@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Murray Stokely <murray@FreeBSD.org> (Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:22:21 +0000 (UTC)): > murray 2007-03-11 07:22:21 UTC > > FreeBSD doc repository > > Modified files: > en/projects/ideas ideas.xml > Log: > Add two new ideas suitable for SoC projects: update the USB stack, and > in-kernel linux emulation for device drivers. I think we need a better name for the linux project. As it is I think it may be mistaken as what we also call our linuxulator. Maybe "linux kernel API compatibility shim (LiKACS)" is a better short description. The usb update one is marked as a soc entry. Last year documentation stuff was not accepted as a soc entry. I don't know if this year is the same, but one of the entries is mostly a documentation entry. Additionally I remember that Hans-Petter has an opinion about compatibility shims for his new USB stack. Can I assume this entry was coordinated with him? And maybe he has also some words to say about the documentation part. I'm also not sure if it is a wise idea to ask to invest time into both usb stacks. Wouldn't it be better if an architectural decision is made regarding which one to improve? Bye, Alexander. -- Daemon escaped from pentagram http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070311204507.2b68b7ea>