From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 18:15:14 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] Discussion topics / issues In-Reply-To: References: <201410071445.50854.marex@denx.de> <201410091542.21802.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <201410091815.14531.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thursday, October 09, 2014 at 06:11:37 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: [...] > >> These are the qspi stuff from freescale, and I didn't understand why > >> these goes into > >> u-boot-arm/master. And there is no intimation of mine as well. > > > > Did you comment on them at all please ? While I disagree with them > > bypassing your tree, I see they were rotting on the ML for a month and > > then Albert then picked those. > > This is not a question of commenting - but - about the process. > > Yes, I asked the author to test the changes later for a while this got > pushed. I never thought this could happen so suddenly without any ping or > something. > > I guess some times it happens few of the patches will rotted for a while on > ML due to some delays, but taking them with/out any ping causes over head > if the respective owner will look at the code for later modifications. I agree with you that there is a problem where custodians get bypassed and that such a thing happened to me as well. This is sporadic, but apparently annoying enough, so this should be added. > >> Issue is that the driver itself is not in a proper shape, why does > >> subsystem patches were > >> pushed without the the review tag from a respective custodians. > > > > I produced a hypothesis above. > > > > Can you retroactively comment on them and ask the author to fix the code? > > Yes - I asked the author for fixing those for few of the patches > against that change. Thanks! > >> Please try to discuss this point as well "Each subsystem patch(es) > >> should be pushed > >> if and only if the respective custodian should marked the review tag" > > > > I agree we have an issue here, but I would suggest we move this > > discussion into a separate thread now. The subject of the email does not > > match the topic of the thread by far. > > Agreed - I mentioned this on this tread only for listing item on > meeting, that it. Will you join us as well? (sorry, I lost track of who will and who won't) Best regards, Marek Vasut