On 10/12/2014 11:19, Luka Perkov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 07:16:20AM +0100, John Crispin wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:41:29PM +0100, Richard Kunze wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Kunze <[email protected]> --- >>>> .../kirkwood/patches-3.14/172-ix2_200-fix-mtd-layout.patch | 13 >>>> +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) create mode 100644 >>>> target/linux/kirkwood/patches-3.14/172-ix2_200-fix-mtd-layout.patch >>> >>>> >>> Applied with minor changes in r43590. Thank you! >>> >>> Luka ______________ >> >> why can this be merged without upstream first and the power off button >> patch cannot ? this seems totally inconsistent. > > The second one won't be accepted upstream because it is OpenWrt > specific, while the first one can and should be sent upstream. > > Luka >
for trivial stuff we never had a upstream first policy. maybe it was decided to put one in place and i missed it. in general it is much better to ask people to send it upstream in parallel. consider the case where contributor might not know how to do so or runs into some other problem. this would result in the feature not hitting openwrt. personally i merge ask for upstream and when i bump the next time i see if it happened or i will do so myself. the last years have shown that only 50% of the "please send it upstream" will reach upstream. _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
