[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/5] REVERT Follow the Linux Kernel in building dtc as needed

Tom Rini
2017-09-27T15:23:45Z

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:56:27PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> In message <20170927143112.GT3112@bill-the-cat> you wrote:
> >
> > Well, NAK. When you passed the "benevolent dictator" hat over, you
> > passed it over. I value your input, and I don't lightly over-rule
> > feedback. So, lets summarize things:
>
> These are all technical arguments. You could have raised these in the
> ongoing discussion. If they are good, convincing arguments, you
> should have no problems to have them accepted.

To which I did for some of them, and others I was going to follow up
with, but left aside rather than further the thread.

> What I'm complainiung about is not WHAT was commited, but HOW it was
> committed.
>
> Marek wrote:
>
> | I believe we have a well-established process of submitting patches,
> | getting a review and then applying them. If the head maintainer doesn't
> | follow the process, why should anyone else ?
>
> You have a role model function. Please stick to the rules!

Right. And part of the job of the custodian is to, on occasion, put
their foot down, on technical grounds, and say when we must do X. This
happens from time to time anyways. It rarely happens between
custodians, and I think this is occurrence number 2 in just over 5
years. And given the related issue of "everyone" being broken unless
they have a new DTC installed, I didn't want to wait nearly so long try
and convince Marek as I did with Albert and the unaligned access thing
last time. Nor did I want to go with reverting the FDT changes so we
can continue cycling around on what amounts to correcting the previous
mistake of not just including dtc.

--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20170927/2d51349b/attachment.sig>