On Wed, 08 Jun 2016, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:25:30PM +0000, Opensource [Steve Twiss] wrote: > > On 08 June 2016 15:19, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > We *really* shouldn't be blocking on my ack for trivial changes outside > > > the subsystem like this though :( > > > There had been no reply since my first e-mail round about a month ago, so I > > figured there was something wrong with the patch submission. > > It was the activity pattern on the patch more than anything else, and of > course the merge window was in that month as well. > > > In future I will split up the responsibility and define the Subject line > > better to > > remove any ambiguity. > > Like I say a trivial maintainers update like this really should just get > applied anyway.
Right. I was about to apply this regardless. The issue was not specific to this patch. I tend to go dark during the merge-window to concentrate on my 'real job' (TM). I applied your other patch because it's the one I came across first. This one was marked as "to review" (as I am doing now). Don't worry about splitting, I will apply this and remove the other. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
