Re: git-tree, NOW!

Re: git-tree, NOW!

[Marc Kleine-Budde]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 860 bytes --]

Hello,

On 10/06/2008 12:52 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
[...] something about git [...]

...yes, old thread, but I like the subject (still).

I think we need a git tree. It's the second time our humble network
maintainer merged some patches to early. IMHO both times related to bad
communication.......

I've setup a git repo on gitorious:

https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can

It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing
there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s
upstream.

Comments?

cheers, Marc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: git-tree, NOW!

[Wolfgang Grandegger]

Hi Marc,

On 11/30/2011 11:55 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 10/06/2008 12:52 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> [...] something about git [...]
> 
> ...yes, old thread, but I like the subject (still).
> 
> I think we need a git tree. It's the second time our humble network
> maintainer merged some patches to early. IMHO both times related to bad
> communication.......

What do you mean? Usually we do not communicate anything to Dave for the
normal v1->v2->v3->... review and patch update process (this does not
excuse the bad quality of my last series). The problem is that it's not
easy for him to follow our work and therefore we need our own GIT tree.
That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone
who acts as the one and only interface to him.

> I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
> 
> https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
> 
> It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing
> there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s
> upstream.
> 
> Comments?

Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).

Wolfgang.

> cheers, Marc
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Socketcan-core mailing list
> Socketcan-core-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core

Re: git-tree, NOW!

[Marc Kleine-Budde]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1922 bytes --]

On 12/01/2011 09:04 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> I think we need a git tree. It's the second time our humble network
>> maintainer merged some patches to early. IMHO both times related to bad
>> communication.......
> 
> What do you mean? Usually we do not communicate anything to Dave for the
> normal v1->v2->v3->... review and patch update process (this does not
> excuse the bad quality of my last series). The problem is that it's not
> easy for him to follow our work and therefore we need our own GIT tree.

Yes - exactly. I think we're meaning the same:
It's hard to figure out for him when a series is "ready", (or at least
we think it is). We haven't communicated a "series is still in review"
nor a "series is now ready".

I like Oliver's remark to first keep the discussion on the linux-can
mailinglist and post the "final" series on netdev.

> That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone
> who acts as the one and only interface to him.

Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang
or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.

>> I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
>>
>> https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
>>
>> It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing
>> there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s
>> upstream.
>>
>> Comments?
> 
> Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).

During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can
setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and
linux-net-next trees.

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 188 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
Socketcan-core-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core

Re: git-tree, NOW!

[Wolfgang Grandegger]

On 12/01/2011 10:16 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 12/01/2011 09:04 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> I think we need a git tree. It's the second time our humble network
>>> maintainer merged some patches to early. IMHO both times related to bad
>>> communication.......
>>
>> What do you mean? Usually we do not communicate anything to Dave for the
>> normal v1->v2->v3->... review and patch update process (this does not
>> excuse the bad quality of my last series). The problem is that it's not
>> easy for him to follow our work and therefore we need our own GIT tree.
> 
> Yes - exactly. I think we're meaning the same:
> It's hard to figure out for him when a series is "ready", (or at least
> we think it is). We haven't communicated a "series is still in review"
> nor a "series is now ready".

Yes. So far we just tried to signal "patch is now ready" by adding our
"acked-by"... which does not work for a series of patches, espcially if
it touches other sub-systems as well (powerpc, devicetree).

> I like Oliver's remark to first keep the discussion on the linux-can
> mailinglist and post the "final" series on netdev.

Yes, don't ask me why I did not do that first, especially because some
tested-by's would have be useful. I also learned that some more serious
compile tests have to be done for different archs (x86, powerpc, arm, ...).

>> That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone
>> who acts as the one and only interface to him.
> 
> Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang
> or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.

Oliver?

>>> I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
>>>
>>> https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
>>>
>>> It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing
>>> there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s
>>> upstream.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>> Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
> 
> During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can
> setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and
> linux-net-next trees.

Do we need two trees? I thinks you can save a lot of bandwith (and disk
space) by using just one tree and two branches.

Wolfgang.

Re: git-tree, NOW!

[Marc Kleine-Budde]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2253 bytes --]

On 12/01/2011 10:30 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> On 12/01/2011 10:16 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
[...]

> Yes. So far we just tried to signal "patch is now ready" by adding our
> "acked-by"... which does not work for a series of patches, espcially if
> it touches other sub-systems as well (powerpc, devicetree).

Yes - but David sometimes merges patches if they are not reviewed. Like
the pch-can driver, where I missed to reply to net-dev.

>> I like Oliver's remark to first keep the discussion on the linux-can
>> mailinglist and post the "final" series on netdev.
> 
> Yes, don't ask me why I did not do that first, especially because some
> tested-by's would have be useful. I also learned that some more serious
> compile tests have to be done for different archs (x86, powerpc, arm, ...).

>>> That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone
>>> who acts as the one and only interface to him.
>>
>> Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang
>> or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.
> 
> Oliver?

+1

>>>> I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
>>>>
>>>> https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
>>>>
>>>> It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing
>>>> there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s
>>>> upstream.
>>>>
>>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
>>
>> During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can
>> setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and
>> linux-net-next trees.
> 
> Do we need two trees? I thinks you can save a lot of bandwith (and disk
> space) by using just one tree and two branches.

If you want to safe bandwith on your PC, you can $(git remote add) them
into one tree.

Meanwhile there's a linux-can and a linux-can-next on gitorious. The
latter one is still uploading.

Marc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 188 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
Socketcan-core-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core

Re: git-tree, NOW!

[Oliver Hartkopp]

On 01.12.2011 10:37, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

> On 12/01/2011 10:30 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> On 12/01/2011 10:16 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> Yes. So far we just tried to signal "patch is now ready" by adding our
>> "acked-by"... which does not work for a series of patches, espcially if
>> it touches other sub-systems as well (powerpc, devicetree).
> 
> Yes - but David sometimes merges patches if they are not reviewed. Like
> the pch-can driver, where I missed to reply to net-dev.


IMO if someone begins to post a new CAN driver on netdev we should pull him to
linux-can for further discussion & review. Indeed the PCH driver mainlining
was painful and IIRC it could still be merged to an other driver.

>>> I like Oliver's remark to first keep the discussion on the linux-can
>>> mailinglist and post the "final" series on netdev.
>>
>> Yes, don't ask me why I did not do that first, especially because some
>> tested-by's would have be useful. I also learned that some more serious
>> compile tests have to be done for different archs (x86, powerpc, arm, ...).
> 
>>>> That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone
>>>> who acts as the one and only interface to him.
>>>
>>> Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang
>>> or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.
>>
>> Oliver?
> 
> +1
> 


Well - i'm pretty happy that we splitted up the responsibilities some time ago
and i'm currently only maintaining net/can. I'm working on this basically in
my spare time and putting my eyes on all driver details too exceeds the WAF ;-)

Regarding net/can there's not much traffic & change. So it would be ok for me
to stay on the current process on netdev-ML.

>>>>> I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
>>>>>
>>>>> It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing
>>>>> there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s
>>>>> upstream.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments?
>>>>
>>>> Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
>>>
>>> During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can
>>> setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and
>>> linux-net-next trees.
>>
>> Do we need two trees? I thinks you can save a lot of bandwith (and disk
>> space) by using just one tree and two branches.


As the net tree only get's fixes i wonder why we should clone that tree?
Working directly on Dave's net-tree for fixes looks straight forward to me.

But the idea for a linux-can-next is great.

This would settle the process that we discuss new drivers & changes on
linux-can ML and finally commit the stuff in linux-can-next, where one of us
can send a pull request to Dave.

So everything beyond fixes would go this way then.

Regards,
Oliver

Re: git-tree, NOW!

[Marc Kleine-Budde]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3176 bytes --]

On 12/01/2011 11:49 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>> Yes. So far we just tried to signal "patch is now ready" by adding our
>>> "acked-by"... which does not work for a series of patches, espcially if
>>> it touches other sub-systems as well (powerpc, devicetree).
>>
>> Yes - but David sometimes merges patches if they are not reviewed. Like
>> the pch-can driver, where I missed to reply to net-dev.

> IMO if someone begins to post a new CAN driver on netdev we should pull him to
> linux-can for further discussion & review. Indeed the PCH driver mainlining

+1

> was painful and IIRC it could still be merged to an other driver.

Yep, but that's a different story :)

[...]

>>>>> That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone
>>>>> who acts as the one and only interface to him.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang
>>>> or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.
>>>
>>> Oliver?
>>
>> +1

> Well - i'm pretty happy that we splitted up the responsibilities some time ago
> and i'm currently only maintaining net/can. I'm working on this basically in
> my spare time and putting my eyes on all driver details too exceeds the WAF ;-)

No need to look at the driver stuff.... (continuation below)

> Regarding net/can there's not much traffic & change. So it would be ok for me
> to stay on the current process on netdev-ML.

>>>>>> I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing
>>>>>> there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s
>>>>>> upstream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
>>>>
>>>> During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can
>>>> setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and
>>>> linux-net-next trees.
>>>
>>> Do we need two trees? I thinks you can save a lot of bandwith (and disk
>>> space) by using just one tree and two branches.
> 
> 
> As the net tree only get's fixes i wonder why we should clone that tree?
> Working directly on Dave's net-tree for fixes looks straight forward to me.

Thinking about it - yes, what about just keeping linux-can-next.

> But the idea for a linux-can-next is great.
> 
> This would settle the process that we discuss new drivers & changes on
> linux-can ML and finally commit the stuff in linux-can-next, where one of us
> can send a pull request to Dave.

...you send the pull request.

> So everything beyond fixes would go this way then.

+1

So we communicate to davem that we now have a git tree, and Oliver is
the one that send the pull requests. Let's ask him if he wants to see
the patches in the pull request.

Marc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS

[Oliver Hartkopp]

On 01.12.2011 12:03, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

> On 12/01/2011 11:49 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:


>> As the net tree only get's fixes i wonder why we should clone that tree?
>> Working directly on Dave's net-tree for fixes looks straight forward to me.
> 
> Thinking about it - yes, what about just keeping linux-can-next.
> 
>> But the idea for a linux-can-next is great.
>>
>> This would settle the process that we discuss new drivers & changes on
>> linux-can ML and finally commit the stuff in linux-can-next, where one of us
>> can send a pull request to Dave.
> 
> ...you send the pull request.
> 
>> So everything beyond fixes would go this way then.
> 
> +1
> 
> So we communicate to davem that we now have a git tree, and Oliver is
> the one that send the pull requests. Let's ask him if he wants to see
> the patches in the pull request.


Hey Marc,

i'm not as good as you using git. Indeed i'm a git newbie and do not have the
time right now to get in that deep that i dare to post correct pull requests
to netdev.

Following the hints from Dave i checked the MAINTAINERS file how the wireless
guys handle their subsystem in detail. Regarding John Linville, who's
collecting all the stuff from several people to send finally push requests to
Dave i would suggest that you become our 'John Linville for CAN'.

You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion
to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:


diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 717d9e9..af8a0a9 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F:	arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h

 CAN NETWORK LAYER
 M:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan-fJ+pQTUTwRTk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
-M:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp-l29pVbxQd1IUtdQbppsyvg@public.gmane.org>
-M:	Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann-l29pVbxQd1IUtdQbppsyvg@public.gmane.org>
 L:	linux-can-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
-L:	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
-W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
+W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
 S:	Maintained
 F:	net/can/
 F:	include/linux/can.h
@@ -1723,8 +1720,7 @@ F:	include/linux/can/gw.h
 CAN NETWORK DRIVERS
 M:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg-5Yr1BZd7O62+XT7JhA+gdA@public.gmane.org>
 L:	linux-can-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
-L:	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
-W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
+W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
 S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/net/can/
 F:	include/linux/can/dev.h
@@ -4587,6 +4583,17 @@ F:	include/linux/wireless.h
 F:	include/net/iw_handler.h
 F:	drivers/net/wireless/

+NETWORKING [CAN]
+M:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
+L:	linux-can-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
+W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
+T:	git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can.git
+T:	git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can-next.git
+S:	Maintained
+F:	net/can/
+F:	drivers/net/can/
+F:	include/linux/can*
+
 NETWORKING DRIVERS
 L:	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
 W:	http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net



Regards,
Oliver

Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS

[Marc Kleine-Budde]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3062 bytes --]

On 12/02/2011 09:46 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Hey Marc,
> 
> i'm not as good as you using git. Indeed i'm a git newbie and do not have the
> time right now to get in that deep that i dare to post correct pull requests
> to netdev.
> 
> Following the hints from Dave i checked the MAINTAINERS file how the wireless
> guys handle their subsystem in detail. Regarding John Linville, who's
> collecting all the stuff from several people to send finally push requests to
> Dave i would suggest that you become our 'John Linville for CAN'.

Wolfgang and me talked about this (via PM), too. We do the job together,
but I send the pull requests to Dave.

> You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion
> to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:

The cleanups look got, however, do we need the linux-can tree. Do the
wireless people have two trees?

> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 717d9e9..af8a0a9 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F:	arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h
> 
>  CAN NETWORK LAYER
>  M:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan-fJ+pQTUTwRTk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
> -M:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp-l29pVbxQd1IUtdQbppsyvg@public.gmane.org>
> -M:	Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann-l29pVbxQd1IUtdQbppsyvg@public.gmane.org>
>  L:	linux-can-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> -L:	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org

this should focus the discussion on linux-can

> -W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can

the can utils are now migrated (im my repo still)

>  S:	Maintained
>  F:	net/can/
>  F:	include/linux/can.h
> @@ -1723,8 +1720,7 @@ F:	include/linux/can/gw.h
>  CAN NETWORK DRIVERS
>  M:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg-5Yr1BZd7O62+XT7JhA+gdA@public.gmane.org>
>  L:	linux-can-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> -L:	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> -W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>  S:	Maintained
>  F:	drivers/net/can/
>  F:	include/linux/can/dev.h
> @@ -4587,6 +4583,17 @@ F:	include/linux/wireless.h
>  F:	include/net/iw_handler.h
>  F:	drivers/net/wireless/
> 
> +NETWORKING [CAN]
> +M:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
> +L:	linux-can-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
> +T:	git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can.git

do we need this tree?

> +T:	git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can-next.git
> +S:	Maintained
> +F:	net/can/
> +F:	drivers/net/can/
> +F:	include/linux/can*
> +
>  NETWORKING DRIVERS
>  L:	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>  W:	http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 188 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
Socketcan-core-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core

Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS

[Wolfgang Grandegger]

Hi Marc,

On 12/02/2011 01:22 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 12/02/2011 09:46 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>> Hey Marc,
>>
>> i'm not as good as you using git. Indeed i'm a git newbie and do not have the
>> time right now to get in that deep that i dare to post correct pull requests
>> to netdev.
>>
>> Following the hints from Dave i checked the MAINTAINERS file how the wireless
>> guys handle their subsystem in detail. Regarding John Linville, who's
>> collecting all the stuff from several people to send finally push requests to
>> Dave i would suggest that you become our 'John Linville for CAN'.
> 
> Wolfgang and me talked about this (via PM), too. We do the job together,
> but I send the pull requests to Dave.

Thanks!

>> You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion
>> to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:
> 
> The cleanups look got, however, do we need the linux-can tree. Do the
> wireless people have two trees?

I would drop it for the time being.

>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index 717d9e9..af8a0a9 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F:	arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h
>>
>>  CAN NETWORK LAYER
>>  M:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
>> -M:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@volkswagen.de>
>> -M:	Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann@volkswagen.de>
>>  L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>> -L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
> 
> this should focus the discussion on linux-can

Well, but I think the patches still need to be presented on the netdev
ml? We should clarify that.

>> -W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
>> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
> 
> the can utils are now migrated (im my repo still)
> 
>>  S:	Maintained
>>  F:	net/can/
>>  F:	include/linux/can.h
>> @@ -1723,8 +1720,7 @@ F:	include/linux/can/gw.h
>>  CAN NETWORK DRIVERS
>>  M:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>
>>  L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>> -L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
>> -W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
>> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>>  S:	Maintained
>>  F:	drivers/net/can/
>>  F:	include/linux/can/dev.h
>> @@ -4587,6 +4583,17 @@ F:	include/linux/wireless.h
>>  F:	include/net/iw_handler.h
>>  F:	drivers/net/wireless/
>>
>> +NETWORKING [CAN]
>> +M:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
>> +L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>> +T:	git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can.git
> 
> do we need this tree?

I don't think so. You should be added to the CAN NETWORK DRIVERS entry
above.

Wolfgang.

Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS

[Oliver Hartkopp]

On 02.12.2011 13:34, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:

> Hi Marc,
> 
> On 12/02/2011 01:22 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>> On 12/02/2011 09:46 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>> Hey Marc,
>>>
>>> i'm not as good as you using git. Indeed i'm a git newbie and do not have the
>>> time right now to get in that deep that i dare to post correct pull requests
>>> to netdev.
>>>
>>> Following the hints from Dave i checked the MAINTAINERS file how the wireless
>>> guys handle their subsystem in detail. Regarding John Linville, who's
>>> collecting all the stuff from several people to send finally push requests to
>>> Dave i would suggest that you become our 'John Linville for CAN'.
>>
>> Wolfgang and me talked about this (via PM), too. We do the job together,
>> but I send the pull requests to Dave.
> 
> Thanks!


Many thanks!

> 
>>> You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion
>>> to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:
>>
>> The cleanups look got, however, do we need the linux-can tree. Do the
>> wireless people have two trees?
> 
> I would drop it for the time being.


Ok. So we stick to use Daves net-tree for fixes and send patches for the
net-tree the old way, right?


> 
>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>>> index 717d9e9..af8a0a9 100644
>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>> @@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F:	arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h
>>>
>>>  CAN NETWORK LAYER
>>>  M:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
>>> -M:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@volkswagen.de>
>>> -M:	Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann@volkswagen.de>
>>>  L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>>> -L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
>>
>> this should focus the discussion on linux-can
> 
> Well, but I think the patches still need to be presented on the netdev
> ml? We should clarify that.


I already thought about that too.

I think for CAN drivers there's no need for extra discussions on netdev.
But for net/can changes i would always post the patches on linux-can and
netdev to get the networking guys like Eric and Patrick into the loop for a
review.

Btw. we should ask if Dave would like the stuff from our linux-can-next only
as pull request or additionally in full source code.

Just to make it sure: When there are new ideas in net/can i would only post
RFCs on netdev & linux-can. And once there is no new feedback - what would be
the correct way:

- send it on netdev and then acked-by Marc
- send it on linux-can, push it into linux-can-next, and send a pull request?

???

>

>>> -W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
>>> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>>
>> the can utils are now migrated (im my repo still)


fine.

>>
>>>  S:	Maintained
>>>  F:	net/can/
>>>  F:	include/linux/can.h
>>> @@ -1723,8 +1720,7 @@ F:	include/linux/can/gw.h
>>>  CAN NETWORK DRIVERS
>>>  M:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>
>>>  L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>>> -L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
>>> -W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
>>> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>>>  S:	Maintained
>>>  F:	drivers/net/can/
>>>  F:	include/linux/can/dev.h
>>> @@ -4587,6 +4583,17 @@ F:	include/linux/wireless.h
>>>  F:	include/net/iw_handler.h
>>>  F:	drivers/net/wireless/
>>>
>>> +NETWORKING [CAN]
>>> +M:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
>>> +L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>>> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>>> +T:	git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can.git
>>
>> do we need this tree?
> 
> I don't think so. You should be added to the CAN NETWORK DRIVERS entry
> above.


Here is an update:

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 717d9e9..7417c92 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F:	arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h

 CAN NETWORK LAYER
 M:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
-M:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@volkswagen.de>
-M:	Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann@volkswagen.de>
 L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
-L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
-W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
+W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
 S:	Maintained
 F:	net/can/
 F:	include/linux/can.h
@@ -1722,9 +1719,9 @@ F:	include/linux/can/gw.h

 CAN NETWORK DRIVERS
 M:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>
+M:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
 L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
-L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
-W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
+W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
 S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/net/can/
 F:	include/linux/can/dev.h
@@ -4587,6 +4584,16 @@ F:	include/linux/wireless.h
 F:	include/net/iw_handler.h
 F:	drivers/net/wireless/

+NETWORKING [CAN]
+M:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
+L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
+W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
+T:	git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can-next.git
+S:	Maintained
+F:	net/can/
+F:	drivers/net/can/
+F:	include/linux/can*
+
 NETWORKING DRIVERS
 L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
 W:	http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net


Regards,
Oliver

Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS

[Wolfgang Grandegger]

Hi Oliver,

On 12/02/2011 02:15 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 02.12.2011 13:34, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 12/02/2011 01:22 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2011 09:46 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>>> Hey Marc,
>>>>
>>>> i'm not as good as you using git. Indeed i'm a git newbie and do not have the
>>>> time right now to get in that deep that i dare to post correct pull requests
>>>> to netdev.
>>>>
>>>> Following the hints from Dave i checked the MAINTAINERS file how the wireless
>>>> guys handle their subsystem in detail. Regarding John Linville, who's
>>>> collecting all the stuff from several people to send finally push requests to
>>>> Dave i would suggest that you become our 'John Linville for CAN'.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang and me talked about this (via PM), too. We do the job together,
>>> but I send the pull requests to Dave.
>>
>> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
>>
>>>> You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion
>>>> to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:
>>>
>>> The cleanups look got, however, do we need the linux-can tree. Do the
>>> wireless people have two trees?
>>
>> I would drop it for the time being.
> 
> 
> Ok. So we stick to use Daves net-tree for fixes and send patches for the
> net-tree the old way, right?

Don't now what Dave's preference is.

>>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>>>> index 717d9e9..af8a0a9 100644
>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>>> @@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F:	arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h
>>>>
>>>>  CAN NETWORK LAYER
>>>>  M:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan-fJ+pQTUTwRTk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
>>>> -M:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp-l29pVbxQd1IUtdQbppsyvg@public.gmane.org>
>>>> -M:	Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann-l29pVbxQd1IUtdQbppsyvg@public.gmane.org>
>>>>  L:	linux-can-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>>>> -L:	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>>>
>>> this should focus the discussion on linux-can
>>
>> Well, but I think the patches still need to be presented on the netdev
>> ml? We should clarify that.
> 
> 
> I already thought about that too.
> 
> I think for CAN drivers there's no need for extra discussions on netdev.
> But for net/can changes i would always post the patches on linux-can and
> netdev to get the networking guys like Eric and Patrick into the loop for a
> review.
> 
> Btw. we should ask if Dave would like the stuff from our linux-can-next only
> as pull request or additionally in full source code.

As the patch goes through Dave's tree, I think the patch *must* be
posted on the netdev ML.

> Just to make it sure: When there are new ideas in net/can i would only post
> RFCs on netdev & linux-can. And once there is no new feedback - what would be
> the correct way:
> 
> - send it on netdev and then acked-by Marc

Either you, Marc or myself will pick it up and push it onto the
linux-can-next tree. We will need to add a "signed-off-by" then!!!
I does make sense to have a separate branch for development where we can
push our changes to and then Marc merges them to the "to-net-next"
branch. Note also that we need to rebase our patches regularly (re-sync
with net-next), especially before sending the pull request. But Marc
knows better...

> - send it on linux-can, push it into linux-can-next, and send a pull request?

Well, we still need to define the procedure. We could also use the
patchwork infrastructure to handle the patches.

...

> Here is an update:
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 717d9e9..7417c92 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F:	arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h
> 
>  CAN NETWORK LAYER
>  M:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan-fJ+pQTUTwRTk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
> -M:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp-l29pVbxQd1IUtdQbppsyvg@public.gmane.org>
> -M:	Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann-l29pVbxQd1IUtdQbppsyvg@public.gmane.org>
>  L:	linux-can-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> -L:	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> -W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>  S:	Maintained
>  F:	net/can/
>  F:	include/linux/can.h
> @@ -1722,9 +1719,9 @@ F:	include/linux/can/gw.h
> 
>  CAN NETWORK DRIVERS
>  M:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg-5Yr1BZd7O62+XT7JhA+gdA@public.gmane.org>
> +M:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
>  L:	linux-can-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> -L:	netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> -W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>  S:	Maintained
>  F:	drivers/net/can/
>  F:	include/linux/can/dev.h
> @@ -4587,6 +4584,16 @@ F:	include/linux/wireless.h
>  F:	include/net/iw_handler.h
>  F:	drivers/net/wireless/
> 
> +NETWORKING [CAN]
> +M:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>
> +L:	linux-can-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
> +T:	git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can-next.git
> +S:	Maintained
> +F:	net/can/
> +F:	drivers/net/can/
> +F:	include/linux/can*
> +

Please drop the entry above and move the "T" line to the CAN NETWORK
DRIVERS and PROTOCOL entries. can/net changes have also go through the
git repository.

Wolfgang.

Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS

[Oliver Hartkopp]

On 02.12.2011 14:34, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:

>> Ok. So we stick to use Daves net-tree for fixes and send patches for the
>> net-tree the old way, right?
> 
> Don't now what Dave's preference is.


If we present fixes to the net-tree via pull request, we would need a
linux-can.git again to pull from ...

> 
>>>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>>>>> index 717d9e9..af8a0a9 100644
>>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>>>> @@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F:	arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h
>>>>>
>>>>>  CAN NETWORK LAYER
>>>>>  M:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
>>>>> -M:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@volkswagen.de>
>>>>> -M:	Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann@volkswagen.de>
>>>>>  L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>>>>> -L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
>>>>
>>>> this should focus the discussion on linux-can
>>>
>>> Well, but I think the patches still need to be presented on the netdev
>>> ml? We should clarify that.
>>
>>
>> I already thought about that too.
>>
>> I think for CAN drivers there's no need for extra discussions on netdev.
>> But for net/can changes i would always post the patches on linux-can and
>> netdev to get the networking guys like Eric and Patrick into the loop for a
>> review.
>>
>> Btw. we should ask if Dave would like the stuff from our linux-can-next only
>> as pull request or additionally in full source code.
> 
> As the patch goes through Dave's tree, I think the patch *must* be
> posted on the netdev ML.


Looking to the wireless guys:

net Fixes are sent with source.
  http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/128561/

net-next Pull requests are sent without source.
  http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/128071/

But i don't think we would have that much changes, that sending the source
becomes annoying. So you are right: We should send our pull requests with src.

> 
>> Just to make it sure: When there are new ideas in net/can i would only post
>> RFCs on netdev & linux-can. And once there is no new feedback - what would be
>> the correct way:
>>
>> - send it on netdev and then acked-by Marc
> 
> Either you, Marc or myself will pick it up and push it onto the
> linux-can-next tree. We will need to add a "signed-off-by" then!!!


ok.

> I does make sense to have a separate branch for development where we can
> push our changes to and then Marc merges them to the "to-net-next"
> branch.


ok.

> Note also that we need to rebase our patches regularly (re-sync
> with net-next), especially before sending the pull request. But Marc
> knows better...
> 
>> - send it on linux-can, push it into linux-can-next, and send a pull request?
> 
> Well, we still need to define the procedure. We could also use the
> patchwork infrastructure to handle the patches.
> 
> ...
> 
>> Here is an update:
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index 717d9e9..7417c92 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F:	arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h
>>
>>  CAN NETWORK LAYER
>>  M:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
>> -M:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@volkswagen.de>
>> -M:	Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann@volkswagen.de>
>>  L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>> -L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
>> -W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
>> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>>  S:	Maintained
>>  F:	net/can/
>>  F:	include/linux/can.h
>> @@ -1722,9 +1719,9 @@ F:	include/linux/can/gw.h
>>
>>  CAN NETWORK DRIVERS
>>  M:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>
>> +M:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
>>  L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>> -L:	netdev@vger.kernel.org
>> -W:	http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/
>> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>>  S:	Maintained
>>  F:	drivers/net/can/
>>  F:	include/linux/can/dev.h
>> @@ -4587,6 +4584,16 @@ F:	include/linux/wireless.h
>>  F:	include/net/iw_handler.h
>>  F:	drivers/net/wireless/
>>
>> +NETWORKING [CAN]
>> +M:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
>> +L:	linux-can@vger.kernel.org
>> +W:	http://gitorious.org/linux-can
>> +T:	git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can-next.git
>> +S:	Maintained
>> +F:	net/can/
>> +F:	drivers/net/can/
>> +F:	include/linux/can*
>> +
> 
> Please drop the entry above and move the "T" line to the CAN NETWORK
> DRIVERS and PROTOCOL entries. can/net changes have also go through the
> git repository.


Ok. To add the "T" lines to the above entries is fine to me.

But the last entry was the idea to document to Dave who's his interfacing
person. IMO that's important for him to know.

Regards,
Oliver

Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS

[Marc Kleine-Budde]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 806 bytes --]

On 12/02/2011 01:34 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion
>>> to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:
>>
>> The cleanups look got, however, do we need the linux-can tree. Do the
>> wireless people have two trees?
> 
> I would drop it for the time being.

The wireless people have two trees:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless.git
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-next.git

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 188 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
Socketcan-core-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core