On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 01:32:58PM -0800, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > > Dear Simon Glass, > > > > In message > > <capnjgz2p6sbdxiwxw2tecdjadmhkn5inbgrpzbtvwmqutyv...@mail.gmail.com> you > > wrote: > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> This series includes the sandbox map_sysmem() feature, and gets the > >> memory and hashing functions running on sandbox to allow testing/code > >> coverage. I have run it through buildman and it seems clean, with the > >> proviso that I don't have fully-working toolchains for all > >> architectures. > > > > NAK. It is not correct to push changes that affect global code > > through a arch-specific custodian tree, especially if the submitter > > of the patche(es) is identical to the custodian of the very tree, and > > even more so if there have been not ANY independent Acked-by: or at > > least Tested-by: messages. > > > > This is NOT how the peer review process is supposed to work!! > > > > Especially as a custodian you must not do such things. > > OK, I was not quite sure what to do, so may have misunderstood Tom's > instructions - there is a short thread here > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/153342 > > I have created a patchwork bundle instead. > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/sjg/sandbox-mem/
OK, I thought I said, but maybe I didn't, I'm OK with re-using the tree, but _not_ the master branch, u-boot-x86/sandbox would have been fine. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
