From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f45.google.com ([74.125.83.45]:54182 "EHLO mail-ee0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756309Ab3BFPeU (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:34:20 -0500 Received: by mail-ee0-f45.google.com with SMTP id b57so831662eek.4 for ; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 07:34:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5112782A.5000706@googlemail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:35:06 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?RnJhbmsgU2Now6RmZXI=?= MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab CC: Linux Media Mailing List Subject: Re: Patch update notification: 2 patches updated References: <20130205213301.13968.54926@www.linuxtv.org> <51117DA2.4030703@googlemail.com> <20130205200859.3ab68dd3@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130205200859.3ab68dd3@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 05.02.2013 23:08, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab: > Em Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:46:10 +0100 > Frank Schäfer escreveu: > >> Am 05.02.2013 22:33, schrieb Patchwork: >>> Hello, >>> >>> The following patches (submitted by you) have been updated in patchwork: >> ... >>> * [RFC] em28xx: fix analog streaming with USB bulk transfers >>> - http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/16197/ >>> was: New >>> now: RFC >> What's your plan with this patch ? >> We have this regression in the media-tree since a few weeks now. >> Nobody replied to it or came up with a better solution... > Well, you tagged it as RFC. I just marked as such at patchwork. I don't even > read patches tagged as [RFC] or [REVIEW], Uhm... even patches which are sent to you as the maintainer of the _driver_ ? Isn't commenting / reviewing patches the maintainers job ? > as those patches will be > resubmitted later by the patch author, if they're ok, or a new version will > be sent instead. That's what I'm asking you. Is this patch ok / ready ? Or can I generally conclude that patches are fine when there is no reaction on them ? Regards, Frank