From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:52:02 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] Please pull u-boot-x86.git In-Reply-To: References: <20130217205804.9E8232005E0@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <20130218225202.GD3722@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 01:32:58PM -0800, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Simon Glass, > > > > In message you wrote: > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> This series includes the sandbox map_sysmem() feature, and gets the > >> memory and hashing functions running on sandbox to allow testing/code > >> coverage. I have run it through buildman and it seems clean, with the > >> proviso that I don't have fully-working toolchains for all > >> architectures. > > > > NAK. It is not correct to push changes that affect global code > > through a arch-specific custodian tree, especially if the submitter > > of the patche(es) is identical to the custodian of the very tree, and > > even more so if there have been not ANY independent Acked-by: or at > > least Tested-by: messages. > > > > This is NOT how the peer review process is supposed to work!! > > > > Especially as a custodian you must not do such things. > > OK, I was not quite sure what to do, so may have misunderstood Tom's > instructions - there is a short thread here > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/153342 > > I have created a patchwork bundle instead. > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/sjg/sandbox-mem/ OK, I thought I said, but maybe I didn't, I'm OK with re-using the tree, but _not_ the master branch, u-boot-x86/sandbox would have been fine. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: