On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Christian Robottom Reis <k...@linaro.org>wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:02:59AM +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > 2) So the new thermal_exynos4_imx6_work obsoletes the old > > exynos_thermal_framework_V2 topic. You should mention that > > explicitly when asking to add the new one to linux-linaro! > > I was a bit surprised at something related to this as well -- the new > Exynos4 thermal patchset actually includes the generic cpu cooling > patchset instead of keeping it separate. I realized later this was added > because the maintainer suggested including a user of the generic code to > demonstrate its usefulness, so it seems fine to me, though it might have > been easier to understand if you had maintained the original subject > "Add generic cpu cooling devices" and just expanded the patchset by > including the Exynos4 implementation at the end. > > At any range, Andrey's comment is right -- you need to let him know when > you're merging or splitting patchsets/topics or it'll be hard for him to > keep track of them. > I agree it would be hard for Andrey to resolve conflicts. Andrey: what percentage of external branches you're pulling are completely new versions of the patches (refactored or rebased) vs. those that build on top of the old stuff? I expect most of our work to be rebased/refactored work so that it would require reverting all old patches. Would it help if you were told that in the beginning of a feature integration? So we'd say, for example, "Please pull in this XXX thermal branch from git.linaro.org/foo.git and this will be constantly rebased, so pull a new version of it everytime you recreate the tree".
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
