[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Simon Schwarz]

Dear Wolfgang Denk, Sandeep Paulraj and Albert Aribaud,

I'am working on the OMAP3 SPL which is part of my bachelor thesis. Some of the
code was already posted - but i staled my work to wait for the new SPL layout
and the work on OMAP4 by Aneeshi V.

This weekend Annesh V. released the OMAP4 patch and I now start to merge my OMAP3
patches with the common parts of Aneesh's patch.

I think I can release a patch until the end of the week. Is it possible to get
the patch into the upcoming release?

I finish my BA thesis in September - mainlining the code before would be great.

Regards
Simon

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 18/07/2011 10:29, Simon Schwarz a ?crit :
> Dear Wolfgang Denk, Sandeep Paulraj and Albert Aribaud,
>
> I'am working on the OMAP3 SPL which is part of my bachelor thesis. Some of the
> code was already posted - but i staled my work to wait for the new SPL layout
> and the work on OMAP4 by Aneeshi V.
>
> This weekend Annesh V. released the OMAP4 patch and I now start to merge my OMAP3
> patches with the common parts of Aneesh's patch.
>
> I think I can release a patch until the end of the week. Is it possible to get
> the patch into the upcoming release?

You mean you can release a patch before the end of the week, right?

Personally, when a patch was initially submitted before the end of the 
merge window, I will accept subsequent versions of it and apply them 
even if they are submitted after the merge window has closed.

Only, be sure to follow *all* rules for submitting new versions of a 
patch set as laid out in 
<http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versions> 
. Particularly:

- *always* provide history for *each* patch

- *always* provide history *below* the commit message delimiter ('---')

- *always* post version N of a patch "in-reply-to" version N-1.

- *never* post a patch set twice under the same version. Even if you 
forgot some trivial thing like signed-off-by, repost with a *bumped up* 
version number (and provide updated history)

Be warned that not respecting these rules will result in the patch set 
being NAKed (and, in turn, will force you to re-post a Vn+1 patch...)

> I finish my BA thesis in September - mainlining the code before would be great.
>
> Regards
> Simon

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Graeme Russ]

Hi Simon, Albert

On 18/07/11 18:47, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 18/07/2011 10:29, Simon Schwarz a ?crit :
>> Dear Wolfgang Denk, Sandeep Paulraj and Albert Aribaud,

[snip]

> Personally, when a patch was initially submitted before the end of the 
> merge window, I will accept subsequent versions of it and apply them 
> even if they are submitted after the merge window has closed.

Provided they are either a simple rebase or an update due to mailing list
comments or a correction. After the merge window closes, do not use the
existing patches posted inside the merge window to sneak in new features

> Only, be sure to follow *all* rules for submitting new versions of a 
> patch set as laid out in 
> <http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versions>
> . Particularly:
> 
> - *always* provide history for *each* patch
> 
> - *always* provide history *below* the commit message delimiter ('---')
> 
> - *always* post version N of a patch "in-reply-to" version N-1.
> 
> - *never* post a patch set twice under the same version. Even if you 
> forgot some trivial thing like signed-off-by, repost with a *bumped up* 
> version number (and provide updated history)

And if the patch is a part of a series, update the version of *all* patches
in the series (with a 'no changes' comment for any individual patches in
the series which have not been update). Nothing worse than a series being a
mix of various versions.

> Be warned that not respecting these rules will result in the patch set 
> being NAKed (and, in turn, will force you to re-post a Vn+1 patch...)


Regards,

Graeme

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Simon Schwarz]

Dear Albert Aribaud,

On 18.07.11, Albert Aribaud wrote:
> You mean you can release a patch before the end of the week, right?
> 
> Personally, when a patch was initially submitted before the end of
> the merge window, I will accept subsequent versions of it and apply
> them even if they are submitted after the merge window has closed.

The problem is that most of my old OMAP3 patch is obsoleted by Aneesh's 
OMAP4 patch (http://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=131082102506002&w=2) and the new SPL-
Framework (http://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=131056990001719&w=2).

Therefore most of my old patch will be invalid - and some new parts will be
added. It will be a major change not just some corrections.

But I had to wait for these two patches to get finished to add my changes
otherwise duplicated and incomaptible work would have been done.

> Only, be sure to follow *all* rules for submitting new versions of a
> patch set as laid out in <http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versions>
> . Particularly:
> 
> - *always* provide history for *each* patch
> 
> - *always* provide history *below* the commit message delimiter ('---')
> 
> - *always* post version N of a patch "in-reply-to" version N-1.
> 
> - *never* post a patch set twice under the same version. Even if you
> forgot some trivial thing like signed-off-by, repost with a *bumped
> up* version number (and provide updated history)
> 
> Be warned that not respecting these rules will result in the patch
> set being NAKed (and, in turn, will force you to re-post a Vn+1
> patch...)

Understood.

Regards
Simon

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Graeme Russ]

Hi Simon, Albert

On Monday, July 18, 2011, Simon Schwarz <simonschwarzcor@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dear Albert Aribaud,
>
> On 18.07.11, Albert Aribaud wrote:
>> You mean you can release a patch before the end of the week, right?
>>
>> Personally, when a patch was initially submitted before the end of
>> the merge window, I will accept subsequent versions of it and apply
>> them even if they are submitted after the merge window has closed.
>
> The problem is that most of my old OMAP3 patch is obsoleted by Aneesh's
> OMAP4 patch (http://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=131082102506002&w=2) and the new SPL-
> Framework (http://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=131056990001719&w=2).
>
> Therefore most of my old patch will be invalid - and some new parts will be
> added. It will be a major change not just some corrections.
>
> But I had to wait for these two patches to get finished to add my changes
> otherwise duplicated and incomaptible work would have been done.
>

Sounds like a good candidate for a 'rule bend' IMHO

Regards,

Graeme

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Graeme Russ,

In message <4E23FF5C.7060600@gmail.com> you wrote:
> 
> And if the patch is a part of a series, update the version of *all* patches
> in the series (with a 'no changes' comment for any individual patches in
> the series which have not been update). Nothing worse than a series being a
> mix of various versions.

Actually I do not want to make this a requirement.  If we have a large
patch series, and there are changes requested to only one or two of
the patches, it is much more efficient to repost just these instead
always the whole stack again and again.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you
free with my breakfast cereal."
           - Zaphod Beeblebrox in  "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Graeme Russ]

Hi Wolfgang

On Monday, July 18, 2011, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Graeme Russ,
>
> In message <4E23FF5C.7060600@gmail.com> you wrote:
>>
>> And if the patch is a part of a series, update the version of *all* patches
>> in the series (with a 'no changes' comment for any individual patches in
>> the series which have not been update). Nothing worse than a series being a
>> mix of various versions.
>
> Actually I do not want to make this a requirement. ?If we have a large
> patch series, and there are changes requested to only one or two of
> the patches, it is much more efficient to repost just these instead
> always the whole stack again and again.

But this makes a royal mess of the series, especially in patchwork
which does not honor in-reply-to: and has been known to not pick up
patches. How do we definitively know we have the latest version of
*every* patch in the series? It is easy to tell when one has a
different version.

And yes it is a pain, but maybe the will help people (me included) to
get it right faster and not miss simple things like SoB's, checkpatch
et al.

You're not worried about your latest series are you ;)

Regards,

Graeme

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Simon,

Le 18/07/2011 13:31, Simon Schwarz a ?crit :
> Dear Albert Aribaud,

Just "Albert" is fine. :)

> On 18.07.11, Albert Aribaud wrote:
>> You mean you can release a patch before the end of the week, right?
>>
>> Personally, when a patch was initially submitted before the end of
>> the merge window, I will accept subsequent versions of it and apply
>> them even if they are submitted after the merge window has closed.
>
> The problem is that most of my old OMAP3 patch is obsoleted by Aneesh's
> OMAP4 patch (http://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=131082102506002&w=2) and the new SPL-
> Framework (http://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=131056990001719&w=2).
>
> Therefore most of my old patch will be invalid - and some new parts will be
> added. It will be a major change not just some corrections.

I am not bothered by the fact that after your initial submission, 
another patch set was submitted that forces you to submit a rebased and 
adapted patch set version.

What might bother *you*, however, is that ATM the SPL framework patches 
are RFC, so they won't be applied as such, and Aneesh's OMAP4 patches 
are not applied yet. And you need those patches applied for yours to be.

But if it *does* happen, I am fine with it. :)

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Graeme Russ,

In message <CALButCJ8f+SW-gbg0KHby2AufcJ30J1JQ-xVXkNzfMTQBXwhwQ@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> > Actually I do not want to make this a requirement. =A0If we have a large
> > patch series, and there are changes requested to only one or two of
> > the patches, it is much more efficient to repost just these instead
> > always the whole stack again and again.
> 
> But this makes a royal mess of the series, especially in patchwork
> which does not honor in-reply-to: and has been known to not pick up
> patches. How do we definitively know we have the latest version of
> *every* patch in the series? It is easy to tell when one has a
> different version.

I'm afraid there is no other way than always checking your whoile mail
archive.  SO far I haven;t found any better method that even halfay
reliably does things right automatically.

> You're not worried about your latest series are you ;)

No. I repeated the recommendation above a number of times in the past
(last time I can remember was when Holger Brunck asked if he has to
resind the whole series, and I say this was not needed).

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Albert ARIBAUD,

In message <4E242306.1000007@aribaud.net> you wrote:
> 
> What might bother *you*, however, is that ATM the SPL framework patches
> are RFC, so they won't be applied as such, and Aneesh's OMAP4 patches
> are not applied yet. And you need those patches applied for yours to be.
> But if it *does* happen, I am fine with it. :)

I hope we see a final version of these patches very soon, and I am
willing to pull these into the upcoming release.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
In my experience the best way to get something done  is to give it to
someone who is busy.               - Terry Pratchett, _Going_Postal_

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Holger Brunck]

Hi,

On 07/18/2011 02:29 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Graeme Russ,
> 
> In message <CALButCJ8f+SW-gbg0KHby2AufcJ30J1JQ-xVXkNzfMTQBXwhwQ@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I do not want to make this a requirement. =A0If we have a large
>>> patch series, and there are changes requested to only one or two of
>>> the patches, it is much more efficient to repost just these instead
>>> always the whole stack again and again.
>>
>> But this makes a royal mess of the series, especially in patchwork
>> which does not honor in-reply-to: and has been known to not pick up
>> patches. How do we definitively know we have the latest version of
>> *every* patch in the series? It is easy to tell when one has a
>> different version.
> 
> I'm afraid there is no other way than always checking your whoile mail
> archive.  SO far I haven;t found any better method that even halfay
> reliably does things right automatically.
> 
>> You're not worried about your latest series are you ;)
> 
> No. I repeated the recommendation above a number of times in the past
> (last time I can remember was when Holger Brunck asked if he has to
> resind the whole series, and I say this was not needed).
> 

yes. The thread was:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-July/095452.html

Maybe an update of the wiki page would be helpfull to point this out. Ok there
is a hint that the "In-reply-to:" and "References" headers sould be keep
correct, but I think an explicitly hint to not repost unchanged patches in a
serie and hot to do it with "git send-email" would be helpfull for new users
reading this page.

Best regards
Holger Brunck

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Daniel Schwierzeck]

Dear Wolfgang,

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
>
> In message <4E242306.1000007@aribaud.net> you wrote:
>>
>> What might bother *you*, however, is that ATM the SPL framework patches
>> are RFC, so they won't be applied as such, and Aneesh's OMAP4 patches
>> are not applied yet. And you need those patches applied for yours to be.
>> But if it *does* happen, I am fine with it. :)
>
> I hope we see a final version of these patches very soon, and I am
> willing to pull these into the upcoming release.

so can I or shall I resend the whole SPL series with the subject
changed to "[PATCH v3 N/M]"?

Do you have any comments on patch "[RFC PATCH v2 2/9] spl: add initial
support for a generic SPL"
where I added the requested documentation?

Best regards,
Daniel

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Aneesh V]

Hi Daniel, Wolfgang,

On Monday 18 July 2011 07:49 PM, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang,
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Wolfgang Denk<wd@denx.de>  wrote:
>> Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
>>
>> In message<4E242306.1000007@aribaud.net>  you wrote:
>>>
>>> What might bother *you*, however, is that ATM the SPL framework patches
>>> are RFC, so they won't be applied as such, and Aneesh's OMAP4 patches
>>> are not applied yet. And you need those patches applied for yours to be.
>>> But if it *does* happen, I am fine with it. :)
>>
>> I hope we see a final version of these patches very soon, and I am
>> willing to pull these into the upcoming release.
>
> so can I or shall I resend the whole SPL series with the subject
> changed to "[PATCH v3 N/M]"?
>
> Do you have any comments on patch "[RFC PATCH v2 2/9] spl: add initial
> support for a generic SPL"
> where I added the requested documentation?
>

Probably one more small change is required in 2/9.
CONFIG_SYS_SPL_LDSCRIPT needs to be CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT for the sake of
consistency.

br,
Aneesh

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Daniel Schwierzeck]

Hi Aneesh,

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com> wrote:
>
> Probably one more small change is required in 2/9.
> CONFIG_SYS_SPL_LDSCRIPT needs to be CONFIG_SPL_LDSCRIPT for the sake of
> consistency.
>

I'll change it. Documentation is also missing for that option.
Thanks for the pointer.

Best regards,
Daniel

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Daniel,

In message <CACUy__W8Znvqx5PKuTi86t0+BDZe3J0K4MafpmTAMeTHTAH0vg@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> 
> Do you have any comments on patch "[RFC PATCH v2 2/9] spl: add initial
> support for a generic SPL"
> where I added the requested documentation?

Except for a few tiny details (typos and such) I'm fine with it.

Thanks a lot!


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.

[U-Boot] OMAP3 SPL: merge window question

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Simon Schwarz,

In message <20110718082935.GB3867@Zitronenbaum> you wrote:
> 
> I'am working on the OMAP3 SPL which is part of my bachelor thesis. Some of the
> code was already posted - but i staled my work to wait for the new SPL layout
> and the work on OMAP4 by Aneeshi V.
> 
> This weekend Annesh V. released the OMAP4 patch and I now start to merge my OMAP3
> patches with the common parts of Aneesh's patch.
> 
> I think I can release a patch until the end of the week. Is it possible to get
> the patch into the upcoming release?
> 
> I finish my BA thesis in September - mainlining the code before would be great.

I checked in the new SPL code right now.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Children begin by loving their parents. After a time they judge them.
Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them.                  - Oscar Wilde