From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 20:12:08 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] Discussion topics / issues In-Reply-To: <20141009221154.GA24774@amd> References: <201410071445.50854.marex@denx.de> <20141008200948.GK25506@bill-the-cat> <54364960.5020607@monstr.eu> <201410091603.48309.marex@denx.de> <20141009221154.GA24774@amd> Message-ID: <20141010001208.GP25506@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:11:54AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > I don't this Albert is the problem, I am starting to suspect we simply lack > > custodian manpower in general. And I also suspect we're not quite inviting > > and attractive crowd, which is something we should discuss too ... > > As I said privately, I believe we have way too many custodians... I think perhaps I need to better spell out custodian expectations. But as to having too many? No, I need some convincing in that direction. > Anyway, u-boot code looks similar to kernel code, but patch submission > rules are really different. > > Something like this could help..? > Pavel > > --- /dev/null 2014-10-09 01:15:57.354292026 +0200 > +++ doc/SubmittingPatches 2014-10-09 23:58:53.058883776 +0200 > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ > +Differences from kernel: Perhaps. If not in tree, a concice reminder to follow all of the rules spelled out on the wiki to avoid the ping-ponging you noted in a follow up later. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: