On 2012-02-14 17:09:55 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Devin Heitmueller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Jarod Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Looks sane to me, and really needs to get in ASAP. I'd even suggest we
> >> get it sent to stable, as these newer firmware HDPVR are pretty wonky
> >> with any current kernel.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Jarod Wilson <[email protected]>
> >> Reviewed-by: Jarod Wilson <[email protected]>
> >> CC: [email protected]
> >
> > Where did the process break down here? Taylor did this patch *months*
> > ago, and there has been absolutely no comment with why it wouldn't go
> > upstream. If he hadn't been diligent in pinging the ML repeatedly, it
> > would have been lost.
>
> It looks like for some reason, the v3 patch got eaten. :\
>
> http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/8183/ is the v2, in state Changes
> Requested, but you can see in the comments a mail that says v3 is
> attached, which contains the requested change (added s-o-b). A v3
> patch object is nowhere to be found though. The patch *was* indeed
> attached to the mail though, I've got it here in my linux-media
> mailbox.
>
> So at least on this one, I think I'm blaming patchwork, but it would
> be good to better understand how that patch got eaten, and to know if
> indeed its happened to other patches as well.
Patchwork ignored the patch because of its mime type. Patchwork only
handles text/{x-patch,x-diff,plain} but the v3 patch was attached as
application/octet-stream.
I have a clumsy patch to handle application/octet-stream for libav's
patchwork instance. I'll try to find time to clean it up and submit it
upstream.
Janne
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
