Re: No pull for mtd?

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 21:53 -0400, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > Well, just go ahead and help.
> > 
> > This is also how the l2 tree appeared. I noticed that dwmw2 is becoming
> > slow, and I just went ahead and created this tree without asking him,
> > and told him that now he does not have to go through the mailing list -
> > all the "sane" (from my POW) patches are in the l2 tree.
> > 
> > But please, do not create another tree now :-) Either start reviewing
> > others' patches, or declare ownership for some part of MTD and let's
> > create a corresponding branch in my tree for you. E.g., gpmi.
> 
> thanks.
> 
> But it is no need to create a branch for gpmi. The purely gpmi patches
> are very few. Most of time, the gpmi drives the mtd code to change.
> And the patch set is for both the mtd and the gpmi.

I will start looking at MTD mailing list patches soon and start picking
them. Just back from vacation.

> > In case of Brian, I'd fully trust the entire NAND subsystem to him, he
> > demonstrated that he is capable of taking care of it.
> If Brian acks a patch, and there is no more comment for this patch,
> and you are too busy to review this patch and accept this patch.
> How can this patch be pushed to l2-mtd ? 

I'll change my practice and will start processing patches which have
acks from others first.

> This is the exactly situation we are facing now.
> 
> If he has the right to push to the l2-mtd tree, i think we can speed up the mtd.

I am fine with giving Brian Norris write rights to the. I trust his
expertise and I like the way communicates and works in the MTD mailing
list.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy