Hello Devin/Mauro,
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> Devin Heitmueller wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Please PULL from http://kernellabs.com/hg/~dheitmueller/ngene2 for the
>> following:
>>
>
> Hi Devin,
>
> As agreed via IRC with you and stoth, I'm applying all patches, ex
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please PULL from http://kernellabs.com/hg/~dheitmueller/ngene2 for the
> following:
>
Hi Devin,
As agreed via IRC with you and stoth, I'm applying all patches, except
for the ones that are currently creating unused files at the building
system. Let's appl
>> That's said, if I understood Devin wrong or if you now have plans to add some
>> real code at the new ngene-av and ngene-eeprom files, that's fine for me.
>> I'll happily accept a patch that moves that code to another file and enable
>> the code to read eeprom and to use the AV part, even if you
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Steven Toth wrote:
>>> That said, if getting even trivial changes like moving a few functions
>>> around are going to be met with such resistance and come at an
>>> enormous cost, it's *very* tempting to just host it locally and not
>>> submit it upstream at all.
>> M
Steven Toth wrote:
>> That said, if getting even trivial changes like moving a few functions
>> around are going to be met with such resistance and come at an
>> enormous cost, it's *very* tempting to just host it locally and not
>> submit it upstream at all.
>
> Mauro,
>
> It makes no sense to h
That said, if getting even trivial changes like moving a few functions
around are going to be met with such resistance and come at an
enormous cost, it's *very* tempting to just host it locally and not
submit it upstream at all.
Mauro,
It makes no sense to have Kernel Labs work out of tree. Cle
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> Devin Heitmueller wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>
>> And as I explained to you, there were *extraordinarily* good reasons -
>> because the code will be enabled in the future, the code definitely
>>
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> And as I explained to you, there were *extraordinarily* good reasons -
> because the code will be enabled in the future, the code definitely
> didn't belong in "ngene-core.c", and because I didn't want the code to
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> Devin Heitmueller wrote:
>> Ok, here's take two of the PULL request issued yesterday. It's
>> basically the same as yesterday, but except instead of moving the
>> unused code to separate files where it might actually be useful to
>>
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
> Ok, here's take two of the PULL request issued yesterday. It's
> basically the same as yesterday, but except instead of moving the
> unused code to separate files where it might actually be useful to
> someone else in the future, I delete it entirely because Mauro's
> sc
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
> Ok, here's take two of the PULL request issued yesterday. It's
> basically the same as yesterday, but except instead of moving the
> unused code to separate files where it might actually be useful to
> someone else in the future, I delete it entirely because Mauro's
> sc
Ok, here's take two of the PULL request issued yesterday. It's
basically the same as yesterday, but except instead of moving the
unused code to separate files where it might actually be useful to
someone else in the future, I delete it entirely because Mauro's
scripts mangle the patches when pulli
Hello,
Please PULL from http://kernellabs.com/hg/~dheitmueller/ngene2 for the
following:
ngene: properly support boards where channel 0 isn't a TS input
ngene: add initial support for digital side of Avermedia m780
ngene: split out i2c code into a separate file
ngene: split out card specific code
13 matches
Mail list logo
