From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8926DDDE3 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:08:40 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <6E35D2C4-9AC0-405B-8513-63F9A50052C9@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala To: benh@kernel.crashing.org In-Reply-To: <1224561094.7654.229.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: Re: Please pull from 'for-2.6.28' branch Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:08:35 -0500 References: <1224547898.7654.210.camel@pasglop> <392E3825-8E5D-46B0-84CA-24A701BEDF96@kernel.crashing.org> <1224561094.7654.229.camel@pasglop> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Oct 20, 2008, at 10:51 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:45 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> If you had conventions on naming this is the first I've heard of >> them. I know Paul asked about the [POWERPC] to powerpc: change on >> list. > > Well, they weren't official, but others seem to have picked them up, > no > big deal but heh, here now you know about them :-) > >> I do so as well. As stated above, if there are naming conventions >> that are desired I'm happy to conform but just need to know what they >> are. > > Well, my aim is mostly consistency. If you don't like what I want, I'm > happy to discuss it, but I'd like basically to keep consistency in the > naming conventions. In some cases though, my comment also refers to > the > subject being a tad too vague to my taste. I know there isn't a strict > definition of what is good enough or not and we definitely don't > want a > 3 lines novel there, but in the case of the .dts file update, it would > have been useful to highlight that fact for example. As stated, I know now so I'm happy to conform. >> The limit is based on trust. I submitted all the other cleanup >> patches to remove PPC_MERGE. I think I can handle such a patch going >> via my tree. > > I would have still preferred if we had discussed it before hand... Yeah, see my previous gripe about trivial patches and my tree :) - k