On 01.12.2011 10:37, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 12/01/2011 10:30 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> On 12/01/2011 10:16 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > [...] > >> 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). > > Yes - but David sometimes merges patches if they are not reviewed. Like > the pch-can driver, where I missed to reply to net-dev.
IMO if someone begins to post a new CAN driver on netdev we should pull him to linux-can for further discussion & review. Indeed the PCH driver mainlining was painful and IIRC it could still be merged to an other driver. >>> 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? > > +1 > Well - i'm pretty happy that we splitted up the responsibilities some time ago and i'm currently only maintaining net/can. I'm working on this basically in my spare time and putting my eyes on all driver details too exceeds the WAF ;-) Regarding net/can there's not much traffic & change. So it would be ok for me to stay on the current process on netdev-ML. >>>>> 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. As the net tree only get's fixes i wonder why we should clone that tree? Working directly on Dave's net-tree for fixes looks straight forward to me. But the idea for a linux-can-next is great. This would settle the process that we discuss new drivers & changes on linux-can ML and finally commit the stuff in linux-can-next, where one of us can send a pull request to Dave. So everything beyond fixes would go this way then. Regards, Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list Socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
