On 2 June 2011 19:01, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfef...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 2 June 2011 18:55, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, John Rigby wrote: >> >>> I noticed all the fine AndyDoan/Ricardo fixes that make panda >>> wonderful are missing. My question now is should that stuff go back >>> in or should we plan on a LT/BSP kernel for full functionality. I >>> presume if those patches were headed upstream they would be headed >>> upstream:). If not they they should not be in linux-linaro. >> >> This is the strategy of this game. If it isn't going upstream you lose. > > First, please don't take offense to this feedback. I know kernel > banter can have a harsh undertone. > > I'd like to suggest this kind of feedback isn't appropriate. The > issues concerning what can't be upstreamed are well known
I think the issues are well known but if developers are not working on cleaning up the code to make it upstreamable, we have to continue to push back and provide them whatever guidance is needed on how to make it acceptable until they get it upstream. Until it is upstream, the developers of out-of-tree code need to be 100% responsible for rebasing and moving their code forward to newer kernels or there's no motivation for developers to change their ways. By they I don't mean to single out Andy/Ricardo in anyway, this applies to anyone developing code that is meant to go into the linaro-linux base kernel. ~Deepak _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
