Re: mfd: Patch management?

[SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>]

>> I imagine that acceptance for these changes could be influenced
>> also by review comments from other contributors.
> 
> Influenced yes, but I will also need to review them.

Yes. - This is the usual process.


> You can't 'go around' me, if that's what you're thinking.

I do not think this. - I hope somehow that additional review comments
(by other contributors) could make the handling of shown update candidates
more promising.


>> How are the chances that further update suggestions will be integrated
>> just because I sent them as small patch series in the threaded way?
>>
>> Examples:
>> * tps65910: Adjustments for four function implementations
>>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/16/313
>>
>> * abx500-core: Adjustments for eight function implementations
>>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/16/186
> 
> In order to not make my life difficult,

There are more options to make it a bit easier, aren't there?


> I've kindly requested that you gather all of your MFD patches

Or the remaining ones …?


> and send them as one single set.

Do you still insist to get these seven update steps in a bigger patch series
despite of their threaded structure?


> Is there a good reason why you're not willing to do so?

I am trying to find out if a few formal details are really hindering
progress on the clarification of affected implementation details.

I assume that additional hints could occur until I might rebase mentioned
change combinations on another recent commit.

Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html