patches for openbsc

historical

Dear Andreas,

first of all, as I indicated in the past, I am very thankful for the amount
of work you are committning to OpenBSC.  So please always keep this in mind!

Dear Holger,

we all bring different skills to this project.  Andreas' strength is that
he has a lot of knowledge of traditional ITU-T/ETSI telephony protocols,
something that we clearly don't have.  Apart from all his work, he actually
also documented his work in detail - even if in a method quite uncommonly
seen in FOSS projects for development discussion (colorful HTML on his
website).

You on the other hand (like me) have extensive experience in participating in
large FOSS projects that follow certain rules and 'best practise' when it comes
to the structure of contributions.

Andreas is trying to help us with his code, so please be friendly and welcoming
to him.  I agree with you that the mode of submitting one large patch rather than
an incremental per-feature patchset is not how contributions are normally acceptd.
I also agree that cosmetic/syntax changes need to be kept separate from actual
semantic changes of the code, or that autotools should be used the "right" way - 
but we can communicate that in a nicer way.

Andreas, I hope you will bear with us and go through the process of splitting
up your patches.  I know it is the least exciting part of anyone's work, but I
believe it is an important skill to have when working within the FOSS community.

What I would like to see is independent and incremental patches in the
following order:

* timer rename throughout the existing code
* llist header changes (why were they made? c++?)
* the transmit delay timer
* introduction of trau interface 
* bsc_select_main(polling)
* paging extension with cbfn BTS pointer
* the actual MNCC interface
* installation of libbsc (this should be last, since before the other
  changes it is of no use)

after applying each of those patches individually, the code should still
compile and work.  Each patch should be sent as an independent patch/diff
file to the openbsc-devel list, including a short description on top of the
patch what it does.

If submitted this way, I can agree to merge all the infrastructure work right
away, i.e. the above list up to and including the 'paging extension'.   This
leaves Andreas' stage1 patch limited to the MNCC interface, which I first want
to find some more time to review and play with it.

Is that something we can all agree to?

Thanks.
-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org>           http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/attachments/20090519/a1047ecd/attachment.bin>