Dear Reinhard Meyer, In message <4c5de9f7.4070...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote: > > 1. If the patch is simple enough reasoning might be sufficient.
Might. But things might go wrong. Turn around - Murphy is standing right behind you. > 2. If its a new driver, it has to be proven to work (reliably) on at > least one board (other > boards cannot break since they won't use it), and it should be Adding a bad driver can break ALL boards. You just have to mess up the Makefile. > reasonably obvious that the new > code is not board specific, or (if REALLY unavoidable) that board > specific parts are at least > obvious by using #if defined(CONFIG_<board>) CONFIG_<board> should always be avoided and replaced by an appropriate CONFIG_<feature>. > 3. If its a rework, it should be shown working on at least one board in > each architecture (if it > is a shared source) That's what happens often, and turns out to be unreliable often, too. > 4. If nobody but the submitter is able/willing to test the patch, what > do we do then? If nobody complains, it goes in. > Q: who resolves conflicts in very common files like MAINTAINERS, > boards.cfg etc, they > are bound to have merge conflicts when you pull? If that's the only problems, and if your code is based on reasonably current versions, I will fix these. > Q: boards.cfg does not appear to be completely sorted, its not even > sorted by ARCH. The file is mostly sorted, as described in the comment. > And using the vi command does sort the header of that file, too.... Not if you place the cursor (i. e. the '.') on the first non-comment line. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Every solution breeds new problems. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
