[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [linuxtools-dev] How to use the org.eclipse.linuxtools.perf plugin
|
On 27.11.2013 19:48, Roland Grunberg wrote:
Dmitry,
Would you please clarify this? Do you mean that a patch was not reviewed or
rejected without reasoning or that none of the current committers was
interested in working on this at the time?
If nothing else Linux Tools tries to be really open so please refer to the
bugzilla or gerrit patch in case your contribution was rejected for the
publicity record.
We don't have endless manpower but we always try to onboard people interested
in working on Linux Tools according to EDP and I see this as one of the
biggest virtues of the projects so if we failed on doing that I would like
to check it myself and learn where a mistake was made.
P.S. I made have replied or not but my memory is vague about it.
I believe Dmitry is referring to https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=376043 .
There was another implementation submitted that matched more closely with how other
plugins' remote capabilities were being done (ie. through PTP).
Maybe that could have been handled a bit more openly. We did remote OProfile support,
including substantial refactoring of the code, and tried to submit it upstream, and then,
after some back-and-forth, the final message we've got was:
Another remote oprofile implementation was committed by existing committers and is
part of 1.2 release. We hope that you will help us make it even better.
It was not explained by anybody why that another implementation is better. And I still
don't understand overall strategy of LinuxTools. So now that we did the same with perf
(support for local-cross-build-and-remote-execution), it's pretty hard to justify,
to oneself, or to my manager, the benefits of submitting it upstream - even though we'd
like to.
Thanks,
--
Vladimir Prus
CodeSourcery / Mentor Graphics
http://www.mentor.com/embedded-software/
