From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NWuRH-0000K8-3N for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:26:54 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NWuP6-0006bW-Gn for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:24:36 +0100 Received: from p5b3b31e6.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.59.49.230]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:24:36 +0100 Received: from no2spam by p5b3b31e6.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:24:36 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: Rolf Leggewie Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:24:10 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1263760344-26105-1-git-send-email-eric@eukrea.com> <1263763723.5353.16.camel@mattotaupa.wohnung.familie-menzel.net> <1263820243.3675.560.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> <1263824896.26227.112.camel@dax.rpnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b3b31e6.dip.t-dialin.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) In-Reply-To: <1263824896.26227.112.camel@dax.rpnet.com> Sender: news X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.91.229.12 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gcho-openembedded-devel@m.gmane.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: include default PR or not (was: [PATCH] barebox: Add recipe for this new bootloader) X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:26:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard Purdie wrote: > On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:10 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote: [...] >> only way we will get a definitive answer would be to have the TSC hand >> down a judgement on the matter. > > That would seem sensible if only to lay this matter to rest once and for > all! It would also be good to test the TSC processes... I would think this is too minor for the TSC to bother. But if you want to take it on, why should I object? It does take up bandwidth on this list from time to time, so much is true. Personally, I don't think the best option would be to rule in favor of one or the other faction, because that's what it would be seen for. I don't think the TSC can really win and resolve this issue. *If* the TSC decides to vote on this, may I propose to have it decide that people are free to include PR as r0 or not as they see fit, perpetuating current practice. I think that is about the only sensible solution we can find here. If anything were to be made definitive, it should be that devs - when speaking "officially" or something that could be perceived as such - ought to make sure to stress this is a matter of (their) personal preference. Please don't let the TSC turn into some bureaucratic monster that regulates everything. When in doubt, feel free to not rule at all.