On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:01:01PM -0500, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > On 2 June 2011 18:55, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, John Rigby wrote: > > > >> I noticed all the fine AndyDoan/Ricardo fixes that make panda > >> wonderful are missing. My question now is should that stuff go back > >> in or should we plan on a LT/BSP kernel for full functionality. I > >> presume if those patches were headed upstream they would be headed > >> upstream:). If not they they should not be in linux-linaro. > > > > This is the strategy of this game. If it isn't going upstream you lose. > > First, please don't take offense to this feedback. I know kernel > banter can have a harsh undertone. > > I'd like to suggest this kind of feedback isn't appropriate. The > issues concerning what can't be upstreamed are well known.
Zach, in this case, Nicolas is completely right. The task within the Kernel WG is to maintain a consolidation tree with a pretty clear criteria of carrying only upstreamable patches. When the tree is rebased, the patches that aren't upstream (and not trivially portable, AIUI) get dropped, and the authors need to refresh them. The job of maintaining a working consolidation tree is already hard enough. Let's not make it any harder. (And I don't find tone inappropriate at all, but maybe that's because I can see his well-meaning grin when I read it <wink>) -- Christian Robottom Reis | [+55] 16 9112 6430 | http://launchpad.net/~kiko Linaro Engineering VP | [ +1] 612 216 4935 | http://async.com.br/~kiko _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
