On 12/01/2011 10:16 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 12/01/2011 09:04 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> I think we need a git tree. It's the second time our humble network >>> maintainer merged some patches to early. IMHO both times related to bad >>> communication....... >> >> What do you mean? Usually we do not communicate anything to Dave for the >> normal v1->v2->v3->... review and patch update process (this does not >> excuse the bad quality of my last series). The problem is that it's not >> easy for him to follow our work and therefore we need our own GIT tree. > > Yes - exactly. I think we're meaning the same: > It's hard to figure out for him when a series is "ready", (or at least > we think it is). We haven't communicated a "series is still in review" > nor a "series is now ready".
Yes. So far we just tried to signal "patch is now ready" by adding our "acked-by"... which does not work for a series of patches, espcially if it touches other sub-systems as well (powerpc, devicetree). > I like Oliver's remark to first keep the discussion on the linux-can > mailinglist and post the "final" series on netdev. Yes, don't ask me why I did not do that first, especially because some tested-by's would have be useful. I also learned that some more serious compile tests have to be done for different archs (x86, powerpc, arm, ...). >> That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone >> who acts as the one and only interface to him. > > Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang > or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver. Oliver? >>> I've setup a git repo on gitorious: >>> >>> https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can >>> >>> It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing >>> there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s >>> upstream. >>> >>> Comments? >> >> Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?). > > During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can > setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and > linux-net-next trees. Do we need two trees? I thinks you can save a lot of bandwith (and disk space) by using just one tree and two branches. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list Socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
