Hi Tom, On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > 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.
Yes, you said "toss it into a branch in u-boot-x86.git". It did cross my mind to use something other than master, but I wasn't sure if that was OK in U-Boot. I know for next time. Regards, Simon > > -- > Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
