Am Freitag 29 Mai 2009 17:29:27 schrieb Jonathan Michalon: > Josua Grawitter a écrit : > > Am Freitag 29 Mai 2009 16:55:01 schrieb Jonathan Michalon: > >> Josua Grawitter a écrit : > >>> I think most we comply with most of the things mentioned: > >>> - Copyright and License integrity were insured from the beginning. > >>> - coding style has been fixed > >>> - struct usb_sn9c20x mirrors the hardware(clarity) > >>> - we have suspend/resume > >>> - V4L2 support > >>> - at least x86 and x86_64 have been tested > >>> > >>> Do we want a MAINTAINER flag for our driver? > >>> > >>> Looking back on recent activity I don't think so. > >>> > >>> Short: I agree. > >>> What tarball do you want to submit - our master or our > >>> prepare-for-kernel branch? > >>> What happened to the famous git-pull requests? > >>> > >>> GWater > >> > >> Cool that most rules are already OK. > >> I think we would have a place in the MAINTAINERS file from kernel tree > >> (there is only one on the root directory for the whole kernel). > >> Isn't the prepare-for-kernel one aiming on kernel integration? Logically > >> this should be submitted, no? > >> Your "famous git-pull requests" are perhaps not-so-famous: I don't know > >> about what you are speaking... do you mean the code should be directly > >> grabbed from git to be integrated? > >> Anyways, are some code modifications to be submitted before the so > >> called "freeze"? Have enough tests been done to take the responsibility > >> of kernel integration tentative? We should at least wait a little for > >> the other contributors, IMHO. > >> > >> Johndecs > >> > >> > I referred to this part of the "SubmittingDrivers" document: > > > > "Control: In general if there is active maintainance of a driver by > > the author then patches will be redirected to them unless > > they are totally obvious and without need of checking. > > If you want to be the contact and update point for the > > driver it is a good idea to state this in the comments, > > and include an entry in MAINTAINERS for your driver." > > > > I think we shouldn't list ourselves as maintainers because apart from > > SXGA there won't be much more to contribute and people submitting patches > > to this list may have to wait years until one of us answers. > > So the driver will have no update if a model fails for a small thing? If > this group stops when submitted, I don't know who would maintain this.
I guess there'll always be someone around here to deal with bugreports. But why should new patches go through here? GWater
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
