On Saturday 23 February 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ive had no involvement in the past development. if you want to say it > > sucked or complain about how it was done, i dont really care. only > > moving forward from the current situation matters to me. > > I'm not saying it sucks. You're the one who said it's broken ;-)
it is broken. broken as in it wont compile let alone link for any Blackfin code. > > as for getting it to work, i dont see the value in getting an old dead > > version of the Blackfin tree working when i have a clean rewritten tree > > to merge. if i get the old one to boot, so what ? the resulting code > > base isnt supported ... if someone says "i tried to do XYZ with the > > Blackfin code and it didnt work", i'm going to look at it and say "it > > works with this other code base, so i dont care. you can wait until i > > finish merging this tree." > > That's why we do incremental improvements so that you can separate the > fixes from the other stuff and submit them even if there isn't a merge > window open. it's already been done > > > There are way too many useless commands in the tree as it is, we don't > > > want even more unreviewed crap sneaking in through the back door. > > > > if you look at all the new commands you'll see that (1) they're optional > > and (2) they expose Blackfin specific functionality. these affect no > > other arches. > > First, if they're blackfin-specific, what are they doing under common/? my understanding was that all commands go in common/. there's plenty of arch-specific commands in there already. > Second, the SPI driver that broke the tree for almost four weeks was > optional and ppc-specific. Have you run tests on all architectures so > that you can be 100% sure that you're not breaking anything this late > in the release cycle? i make my things conditionally compiled (see the Makefile). so yes, i'm 100% sure i'm not breaking anyone. if you add the CONFIG_xxx to your board config, well that's your fault ;). > Your tree touches common code Blackfin-specific pieces of common code ... there's a difference > you're asking for it to be merged > without any review at all. I don't think that's a good idea. i'm asking for the Blackfin pieces to be merged regardless of "merge window". i'm making no requests wrt review. Wolfgang wants it reviewed first -- i'm fine with that. complaining that Blackfin changes are going in that arent "pure fixes" i dont care about (right now). -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
