On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Zach Pfeffer 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.
Am I really harsh?
> I'd like to suggest this kind of feedback isn't appropriate. The
> issues concerning what can't be upstreamed are well known.
I'm not talking about what can't be upstreamed. I'm talking about what
_can_ be upstreamed and still isn't.
> > In practice this means that AndyDoan/Ricardo will have to do their work
> > again on top of this tree, and then I might merge it.
>
> I'd like to further suggest that in the interest of cooperation that
> we take a more constructive tone. We're all going to need to work
> closely to accomplish our goals of upstreaming support for these
> boards and unifying implementations.
Isn't that what we're all doing?
Anyway I don't understand why you need to talk about "constructive tone"
here, unless you read something different in my words than I actually
meant. But mind you, that wouldn't be the first time this happened to
me.
Confused.
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
