HI, Albert. On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> wrote: > Hi Nobuhiro, > > On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:20:59 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu > <iwama...@nigauri.org> wrote: > >> Hi, Tom. >> >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: >> > On 09/05/2012 04:18 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> >> Hi Nobuhiro, >> >> >> >> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:26:37 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu >> >> <iwama...@nigauri.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 09:15:56PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> >>>>> Dear Nobuhiro Iwamatsu, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> In message >> >>>>> <CABMQnVLBEEjcEtfTzdeThHfTLp=b24qsognfjbzr-8ywytj...@mail.gmail.com> >> >>>>> you wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I am working supporting Renesas RMOBILE to U-Boot. >> >>>>>> Renesas's RMOBILE SoC family contains an ARM Cortex-A9, and >> >>>>>> this uses the same IP as SH. >> >>>>>> (For example, timer, ether, serial, etc.) >> >>>>>> I already sent to patches of rmobile, I got review from some >> >>>>>> developers. And the patch is managed by the arm/rmobile branch >> >>>>>> of u-boot-sh[0] which I have maintained, now. >> >>>>>> Since I had you take the patch of rmobile into an ARM >> >>>>>> repository, I consulted with Albert about the >> >>>>>> future development approach. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> We thought two methods are considered. >> >>>>>> One is Albert picks up a patch from ML to ARM repository, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> As this is ARM code, this appears the most natural approach to >> >>>>> me >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Another is whether to have pull from the repository by having a >> >>>>>> repository for rmobile made. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> If this is an ARM SoC, then it should go through the ARM repo - >> >>>>> even if we should later decide that there is so much traffic >> >>>>> that a separate rmobile repo would be sustified, thi would >> >>>>> still be a sub-repo, which Albert would pull from. >> >>>> >> >>>> Another option, which Mike is using for, iirc, sf and blackfin, >> >>>> is just to add rmobile-master / rmobile-next as branches to the >> >>>> u-boot-sh repository. >> >>> >> >>> Yes, this is one of easy way. But Albert won't pull form >> >>> u-boot-sh, if If my understanding is not wrong. >> >> >> >> This just means that they'll end up on u-boot/master from >> >> u-boot.sh (and from there into u-boot-arm later on). >> > >> > To be clear, what I'm saying is just add a few more branches to >> > u-boot-sh that Albert will pull (since they're ARM stuff). Say >> > u-boot-sh/rmobile/master and u-boot-sh/rmobile/next. Then not get >> > too hung up on which repository a merge message comes from. :) >> > >> >> I was going to do by how to explain you. >> However, I think that Albert mistook by my shortage of explanation. >> Thank you for following up. >> >> Nobuhiro > > I understand that some ARM patches would be stored in some branch > (say rmobile/master) of the u-boot-sh repo and pull-requested to me > from there. > > What I still don't understand is *why* this should be done. Before they > get on this branch, the patches would still have to go through the > mailing list for review, just like the ARM patches that end up applied > to u-boot-arm/master, except they'd have to do through an intermediate > branch. If there are benefits in this, someone will have to lay them > out for me, because right now I don't see them. > Because I thought that it was easier to manage patches as Tom was also written. OK, I understood your thought.
Best regards, Nobuhiro -- Nobuhiro Iwamatsu iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org} GPG ID: 40AD1FA6 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot