On 17/12/16 02:04, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> 
> On 9 December 2016 at 22:25, Bob Terek <x...@esoterek.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/09/2016 03:13 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 December 2016 at 22:41, Bob Terek <x...@esoterek.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Resubmitting some of Aaron Plattner's cleanup patches to
>>>> xf86-video-dummy:
>>>>
>>>>   https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2015-January/045395.html
>>>> . . .
>>>> . . .
>>
>>
>>> Afaict the patches are literally unchanged since Aaron's submit. As
>>> such changing the authorship is a bit ... bad.
>>
>>
>> Oops, sorry for the breach in protocol. Do I need to do something specific
>> to "withdraw" the patch I sent? Should I do something at Patchwork?
>>
I've restored the "author" and added Bob as "Reviewed-by" instead.

> Updating patchwork would be very good, indeed.
> 
>> I'm going to submit an alternative approach to Aaron's 6/6, and was going
>> to include the remaining cleanups, but then it was thought the cleanups
>> should be addressed separately. So then for some reason I thought they
>> needed to be submitted again, against the current version. . .
>>
> Agreed.
These patches have been reviewed and tested quite a few times now.
I've just created a git repo with all the uncontroversial pending
changes to the dummy driver, 6 so far:
https://github.com/totaam/xf86-video-dummy/commits/master
What else can I do to help move this along?

Thanks
Antoine




> 
> Thanks
> Emil
> _______________________________________________
> xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
> Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
> Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
> 

_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Reply via email to