On 2 June 2011 21:39, Christian Robottom Reis <k...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:01:01PM -0500, 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. >> >> I'd like to suggest this kind of feedback isn't appropriate. The >> issues concerning what can't be upstreamed are well known. > > Zach, in this case, Nicolas is completely right. The task within the > Kernel WG is to maintain a consolidation tree with a pretty clear > criteria of carrying only upstreamable patches. When the tree is > rebased, the patches that aren't upstream (and not trivially portable, > AIUI) get dropped, and the authors need to refresh them. > > The job of maintaining a working consolidation tree is already hard > enough. Let's not make it any harder. > > (And I don't find tone inappropriate at all, but maybe that's because I > can see his well-meaning grin when I read it <wink>)
Yeah. I see that now. I'm sorry for not getting clarification. _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
