From owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Thu Jul 20 14:35:09 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id OAA82140;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:35:09 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from rover.village.org (warner@rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA82135
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:35:07 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6])
	by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA95976;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:34:58 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id XAA87606; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:34:56 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200007200534.XAA87606@harmony.village.org>
To: takawata@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp
Cc: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:11:51 +0900."
		<200007191911.EAA09688@libr.scitec.kobe-u.ac.jp> 
References: <200007191911.EAA09688@libr.scitec.kobe-u.ac.jp>  
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:34:56 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+000315
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 479
Subject: [acpi-jp 479] Re: ACPI code base Merging Plan. 
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: imp@village.org

In message <200007191911.EAA09688@libr.scitec.kobe-u.ac.jp> takawata@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp writes:
: We have already rearranged ACPI source code in our repository,
: so I want to import the code.The plan is below.

OK.

: 1.import @sys/dev/acpi,@sys/sys/acpi.h 
: 2.call for review it and other patch needed to make them it.
: (@sys/conf/{files,options},@sys/i386/i386/{bios.c,machdep.c})
: 3.If it is Okey,Merge rest of the part.
: 
: How do you think?

I think this is good.  The first part has no possible way of impacting
the rest of the tree, so is safe.  It might be wiser to announce that
patches are available at http://.... and say that the orthogonal part
of the system (dev/acpi and sys/acpi.h) will go in after a few days
and the patches after the usual review period.  This will give people
some time to object before it just appears in the tree.  I don't think
that anybody will object, but people like to think they could object
if they wanted to :-).  If you import it directly, it will likely be
OK also, but you'll need to send out the call for review message
anyway and it can't hurt to give people a few days heads up.

You might also wish to say something like "Doug Rabson and Mike Smith
have looked at this system and we all agree it would be good to bring
it in"  Assuming that I'm recalling correctly those that have looked
at it in detail and want to see it committed.  If there are different
people or additional people, so much the better.

Also, are there user level programs for acpi yet?

Warner
