Sorgelig wrote:Publishing the code means:
1) You respect the one from who you got the code. Remember, the original author spent a lot of time to develop it.
2) Some one can pick the code and improve it instead to do porting from beginning.
Higgy wrote:There are plenty of current Cores which don't work on all MiST versions, and more Cores get made instead of 'bullet proofing' the older ones.
So what Gehstock is doing does not sound too bad.
I know it is all volunteer stuff, but community users have invested around 200 euros.
I am up for a testing programme to 'bullet proof' troublesome Cores.
Higgy wrote: Identifying who is the 'Core Lead' would be a good start, or someone who is able to modify the existing work.
Newsdee wrote:I (slowly) maintain a list of all cores and their status:
http://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1 ... z1kcyZ7vi4
It's from a user perspective though, so it doesn't address code quality and such. It's also important, IMO, to keep it fun to developers; so imposing too many standards can be heavy. Unless someone is willing to start rewriting cores themselves to meet their new standard.
One thing I can suggest for those who can't code FPGA would be to come up / find / write test suites for each system, probing different aspects in real hardware, emulators, and FPGA. That will be useful for preservation to everybody, not just the MiST/FPGAs.
We could maintain a list of links / test files on each core doc wiki page.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests