Hi Ben,
Ben Warren wrote:
> Hi Dirk,
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Dirk Behme wrote:
>
>> Dear Jean-Christophe,
>>
>> David Brownell wrote:
>> ...
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-April/050802.html
the Patch series and this has been apply in the u-boot-arm/next
>>>
Hi Dirk,
Dirk Behme wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Ben Warren wrote:
>> Hi Dirk,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Dirk Behme
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jean-Christophe,
>>>
>>> David Brownell wrote:
>>> ...
>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-April/050802.html
> the Patch series and t
Dear Dirk,
In message <49f2b6b9.7040...@googlemail.com> you wrote:
>
> > My approach is that once the merge window closes, new patches that are not
> > bug fixes go into 'next', which is for the release after the current one (in
> > this case 07). When the merge window opens again, next goes to
Dear Ben Warren,
In message <49f2bed7.9070...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> > - What about patches which are sent immediately after merge window
> > closed (hours - 1 or 2 days)? I already heard something like 'no
> > problem if it comes some hours later, if it is fine then I will still
> > apply
Dear Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Ben Warren,
>
> In message <49f2bed7.9070...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>>> - What about patches which are sent immediately after merge window
>>> closed (hours - 1 or 2 days)? I already heard something like 'no
>>> problem if it comes some hours later, if
On Saturday 25 April 2009, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Yes. The issue is needing to guess what's up ... so for
> > example, I seem to observe that "merge window closed" must
> > not be the same as "first RC is out", which isn't how the
> > Linux process works. But that's the only example I've
> > se
Dear Dirk,
In message <49f2f59a.80...@googlemail.com> you wrote:
>
> > While I agree on your comment on flexibility, I strongly repudiate
> > the statement that the MW state is not clearly communicated. Please
> > have a look at http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/ReleaseCycle
>
> Ups, this lin
Dear David,
in message <200904250555.17450.davi...@pacbell.net> you wrote:
>
> I think the questions on this topic reflect a reality that
> such status updates aren't yet visible enough. (The original
> question was generic, not ARM-specific.)
I'm not going to push this information down people's
Hi Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Ben Warren,
>
> In message <49f2bed7.9070...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
>>> - What about patches which are sent immediately after merge window
>>> closed (hours - 1 or 2 days)? I already heard something like 'no
>>> problem if it comes some hours later, i
On 09:07 Sat 25 Apr , Dirk Behme wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Ben Warren wrote:
>> Hi Dirk,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Dirk Behme
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jean-Christophe,
>>>
>>> David Brownell wrote:
>>> ...
>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-April/050802.html
> the Pa
Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
In message <20090425170829.ga30...@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote:
>
> > - What's about patches that are sent while open merge window or before,
> > but need some update cycles and are finalized while rc?
> Depends, if the patch is send just before the merge j
On 19:30 Sat 25 Apr , Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
>
> In message <20090425170829.ga30...@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote:
> >
> > > - What's about patches that are sent while open merge window or before,
> > > but need some update cycles and are finalized while
Hi Wolfgang,
On Saturday 25 April 2009, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> in message <200904250555.17450.davi...@pacbell.net> you wrote:
> >
> > I think the questions on this topic reflect a reality that
> > such status updates aren't yet visible enough. (The original
> > question was generic, not ARM-speci
On Saturday 25 April 2009, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> For me when the first version of a [patch] is send after the close of the
> merge and
> it's not a bug fix, then it will go to the next MW. The only exception will be
> if the patch come from an announce or a thread discussion an
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Ben Warren,
>
> In message <49f2bed7.9070...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>>> - What about patches which are sent immediately after merge window
>>> closed (hours - 1 or 2 days)? I already heard something like 'no
>>> problem if it comes some hours later, if it is fine then
Dear David,
In message <200904251153.51380.davi...@pacbell.net> you wrote:
>
> > Just type "u-boot merge window" at google and
> > click on the very first link.
>
> Several other key infrastructure projects make it easy to
> find that info even without using a search engine.
Come on and be rea
Hi Wolfgang,
>> And if we want to make it perfect, each -rc could get a similar
>> announcement, too.
>
> Would ne not just add a lot of noise to the ML, without any real new
> information?
>
> If you want detailed information about each action, please feel free
> and register a RSS feed on the g
Dear Detlev,
In message you wrote:
>
> >> And if we want to make it perfect, each -rc could get a similar
> >> announcement, too.
> >
> > Would ne not just add a lot of noise to the ML, without any real new
> > information?
> >
> > If you want detailed information about each action, please feel
Hi Wolfgang,
>> >> And if we want to make it perfect, each -rc could get a similar
>> >> announcement, too.
>> >
>> > Would ne not just add a lot of noise to the ML, without any real new
>> > information?
>> >
>> > If you want detailed information about each action, please feel free
>> > and regi
Dear Detlev,
In message you wrote:
>
> >> >> And if we want to make it perfect, each -rc could get a similar
> >> >> announcement, too.
^^^
> > No, I meant exactly what I wrote - the RSS feed on the git repo
> > (http://git.de
Dear Jean-Christophe,
David Brownell wrote:
...
>>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-April/050802.html
>> the Patch series and this has been apply in the u-boot-arm/next
>
> I see that branch now exists ... thanks! :)
> Could you clarify the current merge cycle for me, by the wa
Hi Dirk,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Dirk Behme wrote:
> Dear Jean-Christophe,
>
> David Brownell wrote:
> ...
> >>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-April/050802.html
> >> the Patch series and this has been apply in the u-boot-arm/next
> >
> > I see that branch now exists ... t
On Friday 24 April 2009, Dirk Behme wrote:
> Btw.: Now that -next exists, I can't find patch linked above in it,
> though :(
http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-arm.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/next
shows it ... "respects SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT". Make sure
to look at the "next" branch there; you c
On Friday 24 April 2009, Ben Warren wrote:
> My approach is that once the merge window closes, new patches that are not
> bug fixes go into 'next', which is for the release after the current one (in
> this case 07).
Then I'm curious how that dm9000 EEPROM reading bugfix
landed in net/next ... or
David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 24 April 2009, Dirk Behme wrote:
>> Btw.: Now that -next exists, I can't find patch linked above in it,
>> though :(
>
> http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-arm.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/next
>
> shows it ... "respects SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT". Make sure
> to lo
Hi David,
David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 24 April 2009, Ben Warren wrote:
>
>> My approach is that once the merge window closes, new patches that are not
>> bug fixes go into 'next', which is for the release after the current one (in
>> this case 07).
>>
>
> Then I'm curious how that d
On Saturday 25 April 2009, Ben Warren wrote:
> > Then I'm curious how that dm9000 EEPROM reading bugfix
> > landed in net/next ... or is the point that the merge
> > window for 2009.05 is still open, since RC1 hasn't yet
> > been tagged?
> >
>
> In this case a pretty good argument could be made th
Dear David Brownell,
In message <200904250003.51845.davi...@pacbell.net> you wrote:
>
> Then I'm curious how that dm9000 EEPROM reading bugfix
> landed in net/next ... or is the point that the merge
> window for 2009.05 is still open, since RC1 hasn't yet
> been tagged?
No. End of merge window an
Dear David Brownell,
In message <200904250105.41050.davi...@pacbell.net> you wrote:
>
> Yes. The issue is needing to guess what's up ... so for
> example, I seem to observe that "merge window closed" must
> not be the same as "first RC is out", which isn't how the
> Linux process works. But that
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear David Brownell,
>
> In message <200904250105.41050.davi...@pacbell.net> you wrote:
>> Yes. The issue is needing to guess what's up ... so for
>> example, I seem to observe that "merge window closed" must
>> not be the same as "first RC is out", which isn't how the
>> L
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear David Brownell,
>
> In message <200904250105.41050.davi...@pacbell.net> you wrote:
>> Yes. The issue is needing to guess what's up ... so for
>> example, I seem to observe that "merge window closed" must
>> not be the same as "first RC is out", which isn't how the
>> L
Dear Jerry Van Baren,
In message <49f5b6af.5060...@ge.com> you wrote:
>
> > Maybe I pout a little more meaning in the words "release candiate".
> > After the end of a merge window, there is usually still a long
> > backlog of patches that has not been merged, and after that there are
> >
32 matches
Mail list logo
