Re: [myhdl-list] my patches

[Ben <ben...@gm...>]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:49, Sébastien Bourdeauducq
<seb...@mi...> wrote:
> On 10/18/2011 10:03 AM, Jan Decaluwe wrote:
>> The deal is: we work efficiently by agreeing on a spec
>> first,
>
> So, do you disagree with being able to build constant drivers? Or being
> able to read signals within objects in @always_comb blocks?
>

The point is that we shouldn't be reading your patch and try to
understand from it which is the problem you tried to solve.

You'd better introduce them in the following way:

1. This is my problem

Stop here wait for feedback: Maybe people won't agree that it is a
problem, and they might rely on this as a feature.

2. This is an example on how it could be solved

Stop here and wait for feedback: Maybe someone can find a more elegant
way to fix it.

3. Following patch tries to achieve that.

Repeat step 3. until the patch get accepted.

4. Enjoy having fixed something in the MyHDL source code, and having
your name in it.


You jumped to step 3. without defining the "that", with a note that
the tests are hidden on the other side of an URL. This is the reason
no one bothered looking at it, we don't want to play hide and seek
with your hypothetical issues.

So what now ?

Now that you wrote a patch, you should introduce it to this list with
a description about which problem you faced, and how you fixed it. To
this date, I still haven't seen this. (Might be scattered among
multiple emails, but I don't want to bother trying to put all the
pieces together though.)

If you want to make it right, I recommend you writing a MEP
(http://myhdl.org/doku.php/meps:intro) and hosting it on the wiki
among the other ones. If you do think your feature is so simple that
you don't need such a document, mail should do.

Good luck !

Benoit.