On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 08:56 +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> > The main thing you could do, and anyone could do (!), is just review some
> > patches. Even if you don't know the area of code that well, you can usually
> > do
> > a basic review.
> >
> > eg. Just the basic stuff:
> > - Is the subject
> The main thing you could do, and anyone could do (!), is just review some
> patches. Even if you don't know the area of code that well, you can usually do
> a basic review.
>
> eg. Just the basic stuff:
> - Is the subject correctly formatted and makes sense.
> - Is the change log well written a
On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 12:45 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> On 11/23/15, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Hi Denis,
> >
> > On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 17:48 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > As we all know we have a great tool to track the patch queue - patchwork.
> > > The sad thing
On 11/23/15, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Denis,
>
> On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 17:48 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> As we all know we have a great tool to track the patch queue - patchwork.
>> The sad thing is that it's maintained not good as it could be. The
>> netdev patchwork is a g
Hi Denis,
On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 17:48 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> As we all know we have a great tool to track the patch queue - patchwork.
> The sad thing is that it's maintained not good as it could be. The
> netdev patchwork is a great example of how it can be done and I bet
>
Hi guys,
As we all know we have a great tool to track the patch queue - patchwork.
The sad thing is that it's maintained not good as it could be. The
netdev patchwork is a great example of how it can be done and I bet
everyone would love to see the ppc patch queue like that.
So can we improve the
