On 12/01/2011 11:49 AM, Oliver Hartkopp 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 +1 > was painful and IIRC it could still be merged to an other driver. Yep, but that's a different story :) [...] >>>>> 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 > ;-) No need to look at the driver stuff.... (continuation below) > 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. Thinking about it - yes, what about just keeping linux-can-next. > 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. ...you send the pull request. > So everything beyond fixes would go this way then. +1 So we communicate to davem that we now have a git tree, and Oliver is the one that send the pull requests. Let's ask him if he wants to see the patches in the pull request. Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list Socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
