Hi all, but especially Felix and John, I am rather frustrated with the fact that whole point of my URFC concept seems to have failed. The point of URFC is not free debugging, it is to avoid things like the DEFAULT_/DEVICE_TYPE patch where I spend a ton of time debugging and testing, but a quick once over gets it rejected from a design perspective.
I've noticed the acronym RFD for request for discussion; perhaps as a more standard acronym that might be more clear? I've tried to be clear when URFC meant something else, e.g. simple patches that I probably won't get to for a while that someone else might be interested enough in to do something with before I can. I'm not sure what would be a better acronym for that case. In any event, I'd like to have some way of showing a patchset which will be reviewed not for detailed bug check, but for overall suitability, so that time I spend on LEDE is spent in ways that are actually have a chance of getting used. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
