On 15 February 2013 11:24, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 15.02.2013 03:49, schrieb Antoine Mathys: >> First, the ds1338 code was in a poor state and never handled the 12 hour >> clock correctly. My first patch failed to fully fix the problem so I had >> to write a second one, but at no point did Peter or I introduce a >> regression, quite the opposite. > > Read closely, I never claimed *you* introduced a regression. What I have > rather been observing is a seemingly not-ending stream of bugfix patches
One patch is hardly a never-ending stream! > on that matter and Peter not making an effort of requesting qtest cases > from you or for any new ARM devices elsewhere. If people want to provide test cases, cool; I'm not currently insisting on them. > And while we're at it, what annoys me personally is that this patch does > not have a "ds1338: " prefix when it doesn't touch anything else. > People like me need to go through git logs for potential backports and > having that made unnecessarily hard sucks. Peter can hopefully fix that > in his arm-devs.next queue. Yes, and I said so in my review-and-accepted mail yesterday. -- PMM
