From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:54:07 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] arch/mips: Set BR2_GCC_TARGET_ARCH for MIPS In-Reply-To: References: <1382970069-16449-1-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> <20131030184534.7bf2477b@skate> <20131031102253.1aeaea28@skate> <52722E32.7050307@mind.be> <20131031114727.681766bb@skate> <20131031155521.7c17a702@skate> Message-ID: <20131031225407.5e5e2e40@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:10:36 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > Ah, I had interpreted this branch according to the strategy discussed > at last BDD regarding the community organization. In that discussion, > such aggregation of submitted patches was also proposed. I thought you > were acting in that mode. > > In that more general case, where there would me more than one > maintainer-proxy, the exact strategy is still somewhat unclear to me. I think the strategy for multiple maintainer-proxy hasn't been really defined precisely. I believe that the thing we really believed in was the addition of Acked-by/Tested-by information in the list of patches in patchwork (both command line and web). This way Peter can much more easily see which patches have received Acked-by/Tested-by, and look at these with an higher priority. This would make the Acked-by/Tested-by more useful, and potentially encourage us and others to do more of those Acked-by/Tested-by. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com