On 2 June 2011 22:12, Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pitre@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
On 2 June 2011 18:55, Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pitre@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, John Rigby wrote:
I noticed all the fine AndyDoan/Ricardo fixes that make panda wonderful are missing. My question now is should that stuff go back in or should we plan on a LT/BSP kernel for full functionality. I presume if those patches were headed upstream they would be headed upstream:). If not they they should not be in linux-linaro.
This is the strategy of this game. If it isn't going upstream you lose.
First, please don't take offense to this feedback. I know kernel banter can have a harsh undertone.
Am I really harsh?
Perhaps not. The 'you lose' comment kind of struck a cord with me. Its hard to tell tone in a email though.
I'd like to suggest this kind of feedback isn't appropriate. The issues concerning what can't be upstreamed are well known.
I'm not talking about what can't be upstreamed. I'm talking about what _can_ be upstreamed and still isn't.
Sure. I was reacting to the 'you lose' comment. I thought, "well I don't lose, maybe I need to try again, but I'd like some constructive feedback."
In practice this means that AndyDoan/Ricardo will have to do their work again on top of this tree, and then I might merge it.
I'd like to further suggest that in the interest of cooperation that we take a more constructive tone. We're all going to need to work closely to accomplish our goals of upstreaming support for these boards and unifying implementations.
Isn't that what we're all doing?
Anyway I don't understand why you need to talk about "constructive tone" here, unless you read something different in my words than I actually meant. But mind you, that wouldn't be the first time this happened to me.
Yeah. I think I just read the above you lose comment wrong. I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions and not asking you privately about it.