Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/5] REVERT Follow the Linux Kernel in building dtc as needed
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:56:27PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom, > > In message <20170927143112.GT3112@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > > > Well, NAK. When you passed the "benevolent dictator" hat over, you > > passed it over. I value your input, and I don't lightly over-rule > > feedback. So, lets summarize things: > > These are all technical arguments. You could have raised these in the > ongoing discussion. If they are good, convincing arguments, you > should have no problems to have them accepted. To which I did for some of them, and others I was going to follow up with, but left aside rather than further the thread. > What I'm complainiung about is not WHAT was commited, but HOW it was > committed. > > Marek wrote: > > | I believe we have a well-established process of submitting patches, > | getting a review and then applying them. If the head maintainer doesn't > | follow the process, why should anyone else ? > > You have a role model function. Please stick to the rules! Right. And part of the job of the custodian is to, on occasion, put their foot down, on technical grounds, and say when we must do X. This happens from time to time anyways. It rarely happens between custodians, and I think this is occurrence number 2 in just over 5 years. And given the related issue of "everyone" being broken unless they have a new DTC installed, I didn't want to wait nearly so long try and convince Marek as I did with Albert and the unaligned access thing last time. Nor did I want to go with reverting the FDT changes so we can continue cycling around on what amounts to correcting the previous mistake of not just including dtc. -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/5] REVERT Follow the Linux Kernel in building dtc as needed
Dear Tom, In message <20170927143112.GT3112@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > Well, NAK. When you passed the "benevolent dictator" hat over, you > passed it over. I value your input, and I don't lightly over-rule > feedback. So, lets summarize things: These are all technical arguments. You could have raised these in the ongoing discussion. If they are good, convincing arguments, you should have no problems to have them accepted. What I'm complainiung about is not WHAT was commited, but HOW it was committed. Marek wrote: | I believe we have a well-established process of submitting patches, | getting a review and then applying them. If the head maintainer doesn't | follow the process, why should anyone else ? You have a role model function. Please stick to the rules! Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/5] REVERT Follow the Linux Kernel in building dtc as needed
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:15:19PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > This patch series reverts some patches that should never have been > merged into mainline at all: > > - They were applied in violation of the well established rule that > ALL patches must be posted on the mailing list before, and given > enough time for review by the community. > - Obviously, these patches have not been Acked-by: by anybody. > - They implement a solution that probably does not represent the > majority of the developers who discussed this issue. They were > applied cutting short the ongoing discussion, without giving a > good, comprehensible reason. Alternative solutions were > presented before, but this patch series ignores them. > > U-Boot is a community project with an established and documented > development process. No single person, not even a custodian or > maintainer, shall have the power to push through any changes without > or against the consent of the community. If we want to maintain > these standards, we cannot accept this. We therefore have only one > choice: revert these patches now, and let them undergo the necessary > review process on the mailing list, allowing for the usual grace > period of two weeks. Sorry. Well, NAK. When you passed the "benevolent dictator" hat over, you passed it over. I value your input, and I don't lightly over-rule feedback. So, lets summarize things: - We need a modern device tree compiler. - Everyone needs a modern device tree compiler, because everyone should be running 'make tests'. - This is not the first, or second, or possibly even third time we've hit problems of people using different versions of dtc and seeing different results / problems. - The Linux Kernel has avoided this problem for forever by just bundling the minimum required parts of dtc in order to build things. So, I've imported the infrastructure to keep things in sync, and imported upstream dtc. Now, the best argument I've heard against this is "bundling is bad". I don't disagree, and the best way to fix this problem would be for distributions to start shipping a new enough version here that the kernel can drop it out, just like they did for linux-firmware recently. A whole lot more people care about the kernel than they do about U-Boot, and that's a more viable path forward. It would even make some kernel folks happy. -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
