On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:54:01PM -0700, Steve Rae wrote: > 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....
Well, this was probably the outside edge of it. I saw these before making v2016.03 but since it's a tricky enough area I didn't want to grab them before release. Then I figured they would get picked up by the custodian for v2016.05-rc1. They didn't since I mis-assigned them. > -- how to escalate when those "nudges" seem to be ignored.... Well, if something is posted after $X-rc1 and not merged by $((X + 1))-rc1, please reply to the release email asking if someone can grab $patches as they've been around for a while. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
