On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Eric Bénard <[email protected]> wrote: > Le Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:13:48 -0300, > Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit : >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Eric Bénard <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Le Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:48:31 -0300, >> > Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> You are welcome to review the patches and test; I just cannot keep >> >> holding patches for so long as it is a nightmare to manage a huge >> >> queue of patches. Specially when they are tested and need more wider >> >> test. >> > >> > less then 24 hours between sending the match on the ML and comitting >> > them doesn't allow any serious testing by the ML readers. >> >> Agreed. It was indeed less than 24 hours. >> >> Next time I will give 48 hours for huge or complex patchsets; I just > > 48h is very short for people to test such big changes especially for > those who have other occupations than meta-fsl-arm.
The biggest problem here is we may have a bottleneck of queued patches; one exemple was the GPU patches that were worked for very long time until we found a good and working solution but it was a nightmare for me to keep all the versions working and testing with and without it. A huge queue of patches also makes the handle of all this harder for as you're not the only one which work in other things than meta-fsl-arm. > Most versions of software in meta-fsl-* don't change very fast so > allowing something like a week for peoples to test doesn't seems a big > issue. >> don't see a reason to wait 24 hours for trivial bug fixes however I >> agree a U-Boot change needs more time and will follow this rule next >> time. >> > > because even a trivial bugfix can contain an error or someone else may > have ideas for a better fix so review is important unless. It depends on many things and we can also change it again in another patch for fixing it better. So I think we shouldn't hold for too long as it makes life harder for people merging and testing these stuff. > And in the present case, you default many boards to a bootloader > version which is not a stable one which IMHO is a not a good thing. The U-Boot will be released very soon and it will be the stable branch. Regards, -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
