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
