Re: [PATCH] powertop: update to 2.0+git

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 08:11 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 15 jul. 2012, om 23:25 heeft Otavio Salvador het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> >> The recipe is autotools based now, the COPYING file was replaced with the complete GPLv2 license text.
> >> No more 'lspci' needed ad runtime, but zlib and libnl are needed nowadays.
> >> Add 2 patches, one to fix cross builds and one from Linaro to fix C state parsing on !x86.
> > 
> > Please add proper Upstream-Status for the patches; it is nice to have
> > those to track the pending patches.
> 
> Isn't that field only used to put in "pending" and then backslap each
> other on doing such a good job?

I think that having the combination of knowing where the patch came
from, a description of what it does and some idea of how hacky it is
makes a significant difference to anyone subsequently looking at the
patch.

Over time I also believe we can make a significant change in the amount
of patches we're carrying around and the field will help with that.

If you want a concrete real world example now, when upgrading a recipe,
if you see the string "backport", maybe along with a commit ID, it means
you have to do much less work in verifying it is no longer required. It
also helps me review things when I see people removing patches.

Cheers,

Richard