-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>> - UGLY_COUNTERPRODUCTIVE_MAINTAINER_COMMENTS_BE_GONE > > Much nicer :-) I wish we could do this with fewer items scattered > all over various structures, though. I've simplified the irq_works > logic a bit, mainly to make sure we always initialize the field. Actually Werner, this was about removing your comments. I did point out to you that the patch you took from git wasn't finished. > Please check if I got everything right. It seems that your patch was > made against an old code base, so there were a number of conflicts I > had to fix. I hope I found all of them, but you never know ... What old code base? It was up to date with the svn patchset at the time, as are both the kernel and u-boot git as of yesterday with yesterday's set and upstream. If it won't merge, tell the submitter on the list what versions you are using and ask for resubmission. I think we need to change the way we are working to conform with how other projects handle merging. If you have an objection to a patch, especially a big new feature, NAK it on the list explaining your objections and let the submitter decide to accept your views or argue them, either way it's up to the *submitter* to make the changes and issue Try#<n+1>. Your shoving the submitter away from their keyboard and making the changes yourself, then committing it without further comment from anyone else doesn't encourage submission. Certainly your current method of trying to "own" everything going through your hands will not scale, and in fact will block you working on anything else: nor did anybody die and make you the one person that can randomly meddle with code and commit it without the same procedure as everyone else. Let's not pretend that by glancing at the patch you understood the intricacies of MCI and the platform interrupts (which you broke with your earlier meddling) or whatever other unfamiliar subsystem it might be, instead make your request to the guy whose head is full of the detail already. You needed to expend a large effort to understand MCI because a patch came where the submitter understood it, you need to fully grok everything anybody sends a patch for? Nope. What happens if people rain down large patches on stuff you aren't familiar with? You just need to filter and apply patches, a far lighter problem. That said, your *review* is appreciated, but that's all this should have been pending a Try #2 from the *submitter*, which is what I would see on the other projects I spent time with. - -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHlGh5OjLpvpq7dMoRAjUlAJsFHF+zl0bjEYWTH8qnCSZhh7rxZACfZfwQ kd77E1dB3GZUtZ0prfRQ4SU= =75K/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
