Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <1317335329-24870-1-git-send-email-vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> The following changes since commit 1d5e7fb403257d62f0f2419cb83fdf6b0f02f215:
>
> Prepare v2011.09 (2011-09-29 21:11:15 +0200)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
> git://www.denx.de/git
The following changes since commit 1d5e7fb403257d62f0f2419cb83fdf6b0f02f215:
Prepare v2011.09 (2011-09-29 21:11:15 +0200)
are available in the git repository at:
git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-blackfin.git post
All have been posted to the list already.
Mike Frysinger (6):
Blackfin: bf53
On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 17:54:32 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Your bogus repostings are rejected, not the original patches.
> >
> > so since my pull requests are actually the original patches, i can go
> > ahead and change them from "rejected" to "new" ? or should i just s
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <201107051332.55970.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> > Your bogus repostings are rejected, not the original patches.
>
> so since my pull requests are actually the original patches, i can go ahead
> and change them from "rejected" to "new" ? or should i just send
On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 05:59:56 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > you already said that's what you want, and i already said "OK", which
> > gets us back to what i already asked: if the pull requests reflect the
> > old patches posted to the list before the resend on June 28th, the
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <201107050214.11960.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> you already said that's what you want, and i already said "OK", which gets us
> back to what i already asked: if the pull requests reflect the old patches
> posted to the list before the resend on June 28th, the
On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 00:42:13 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versi
> > > ons
> >
> > which is irrelevant like i already said multiple times -- these patches
> > arent updated
>
> So there is zero reason for
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <201107042125.54555.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> > http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versions
>
> which is irrelevant like i already said multiple times -- these patches arent
> updated
So there is zero reason for resending.
>
On Sunday, July 03, 2011 18:30:05 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i'm not ignoring any rules. you said you dont want dumps of patches that
> > havent been changed and lack pointing back to previous sets. fine.
>
> http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <201107011927.38666.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> i'm not ignoring any rules. you said you dont want dumps of patches that
> havent been changed and lack pointing back to previous sets. fine.
http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_
On Friday, July 01, 2011 00:36:59 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > so basically you're permanently NAK-ing all my patches even though i'm
> > trying to find a way forward. awesome.
>
> It's awsome how you manage to continue to ignore the documented rules,
> even after I explained
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message you wrote:
>
> so basically you're permanently NAK-ing all my patches even though i'm
> trying to find a way forward. awesome.
It's awsome how you manage to continue to ignore the documented rules,
even after I explained them ten times to you.
You are wasting my
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 18:57, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:10, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> > Indeed, such a branch can be helpful. Also a pull request for it. =A0But
>> > we're talking about the _original_ patches.
>>
>> and that's what my serial/post/sf p
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message you wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:10, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Indeed, such a branch can be helpful. Also a pull request for it. =A0But
> > we're talking about the _original_ patches.
>
> and that's what my serial/post/sf patches ended up being. should i
Y
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:10, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Indeed, such a branch can be helpful. Also a pull request for it. But
> we're talking about the _original_ patches.
and that's what my serial/post/sf patches ended up being. should i
change the status for them in patchwork from "rejected" to
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message you wrote:
>
> >> i just went through patchwork and d/l-ed the ones posted there and
> >> compared to my local tree to come to the conclusion that everything
> >> has already been posted (which is something i was not sure of when i
> >> sent things out a few days a
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:49, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> i just went through patchwork and d/l-ed the ones posted there and
>> compared to my local tree to come to the conclusion that everything
>> has already been posted (which is something i was not sure of when i
>> sent th
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message you wrote:
>
> i just went through patchwork and d/l-ed the ones posted there and
> compared to my local tree to come to the conclusion that everything
> has already been posted (which is something i was not sure of when i
> sent things out a few days ago). it was
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:38, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > If you want to do something useful, then apply the original patches,
>> > and make sure to reference these properly.
>>
>> except that they already are the original ones
>
> Then why did you repost them?
i already exp
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message you wrote:
>
> > If you want to do something useful, then apply the original patches,
> > and make sure to reference these properly.
>
> except that they already are the original ones
Then why did you repost them? This is completely stupid, and I never
want to s
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 06:29, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 17:21:46 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> > Please stick to the rules. These apply to everbody, including you.
>> > Even more so to you, as you have the experience and knowledge so that
>> > you actua
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <201106291930.48377.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 17:21:46 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Please stick to the rules. These apply to everbody, including you.
> > Even more so to you, as you have the experience and knowledge so that
> > you
On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 17:21:46 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Please stick to the rules. These apply to everbody, including you.
> Even more so to you, as you have the experience and knowledge so that
> you actually should be aware of how these things get done.
you'll need to revise the wiki then a
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <1309289196-5718-1-git-send-email-vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> All of thse patches have been posted previously, and no one has
> given feedback, so here they are in a handy branch for you to pull.
>
> The following changes since commit b1af6f532e0d348b153d5c1483
All of thse patches have been posted previously, and no one has
given feedback, so here they are in a handy branch for you to pull.
The following changes since commit b1af6f532e0d348b153d5c148369229d24af361a:
Prepare v2011.06 (2011-06-27 22:22:42 +0200)
are available in the git repository at:
25 matches
Mail list logo
