Hi Tom, On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 18:29, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 05:21:05PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > From my side I'd like to change the conversation a little, to how to > > land code, rather than why we should bother. "Code needs to land" > > should be the motto. If someone has taken the time to create > > something, our bias should be towards getting it in, with sufficient > > changes to make it fit the project. There are cases where something is > > just a bad idea, or should be done another way, but for people working > > on major features or changes, biasing towards not landing the code is > > just going to make them go elsewhere. > > This is the wrong approach I believe. The goal has always been and > continues to be to have reviewed (whenever possible, our developer > community is small) incremental change over time.
Yes, I agree with that, but it isn't what I said. > Just because something > has been posted a number of times does not mean it's ready to be merged. I didn't say that either. > > Your challenge today is that on patchwork you have over 150 patches > covering a wide variety of topics and of which many series have > technically-merited feedback that needs to be addressed in a technical > manner. By my count I have about 10 series in progress, with a small number of patches (< 10?) with pending feedback that isn't effectively just a NAK. It isn't a particularly large number, if you add up the patches I do in each cycle. It is in the nature of development and code review that things are often not right the first time, or someone else has another perspective, so I cannot see how this can be reduced. Regards, Simon
