On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:13:37PM -0700, Steve Rae wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:01:10PM -0700, Steve Rae wrote: >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:55:49AM -0700, Steve Rae wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Tom & Albert, >> >> >> Please approve the creation of a custodian repo for the Broadcom (arm) >> >> >> boards. >> >> >> ( Wolfgang already has my public key... ) >> >> >> >> >> >> Wolfgang stated: >> >> >> > Before I can set up a new custodian repo, please post your >> >> >> > offer on the U-Boot mailing list - I think the chips in question >> >> >> > belong to the ARM architecture (?), so both the ARM custodian >> >> >> > (Albert) >> >> >> > and Tom should agree with the creation of such a new repo. Once I >> >> >> > have their "go" it is only a matter of minutes. >> >> > >> >> > So, I do have a few BCM patches outstanding (and I'm build testing them >> >> > now). ELC kicked -rc1 out a week (I'll be tagging it once I have this >> >> > series happy enough to push out with it). Are you expecting the volume >> >> > of boards to increase? Thanks! >> >> >> >> No -- only planning to add 2 new boards.... >> >> It is just that with the current process, I waiting "months" to get >> >> patches applied - so Marek suggested that maybe I need to be a >> >> custodian, so that I can move things along.... >> > >> > Er, months? Sorry, I'm not seeing it right away at least: >> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?submitter=64015&state=* >> > (and questions about how did .... get into state ... ? are answered with >> > "I took a stab at it"). >> >> how about: >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?submitter=64015&state=&q=&archive=&delegate= >> shows two outstanding from Feb 9 !!! >> (plus the three that I assume you are currently working on.....) > > ... yes, the gadget ones that wouldn't go through a BCM tree anyhow :) > > But... I think I mis-assigned them in patchwork and it should be in my > queue anyhow, sorry. >
OK -- then I am OK to abandon this "custodian request" ..... I guess I just need to know: -- what is a "typical" timeframe for getting stuff applied, and -- "how" and "who" to nudge in order to get things moving along - when that timeframe has expired.... -- how to escalate when those "nudges" seem to be ignored.... Thanks, Steve > -- > Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
