On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Christian Robottom Reis
<kiko@linaro.org> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:02:59AM +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> 2) So the new thermal_exynos4_imx6_work obsoletes the old
> exynos_thermal_framework_V2 topic. You should mention that
> explicitly when asking to add the new one to linux-linaro!
I was a bit surprised at something related to this as well -- the new
Exynos4 thermal patchset actually includes the generic cpu cooling
patchset instead of keeping it separate. I realized later this was added
because the maintainer suggested including a user of the generic code to
demonstrate its usefulness, so it seems fine to me, though it might have
been easier to understand if you had maintained the original subject
"Add generic cpu cooling devices" and just expanded the patchset by
including the Exynos4 implementation at the end.
At any range, Andrey's comment is right -- you need to let him know when
you're merging or splitting patchsets/topics or it'll be hard for him to
keep track of them.
I agree it would be hard for Andrey to resolve conflicts.
Andrey: what percentage of external branches you're pulling are completely new versions of the patches (refactored or rebased) vs. those that build on top of the old stuff?
I expect most of our work to be rebased/refactored work so that it would require reverting all old patches. Would it help if you were told that in the beginning of a feature integration? So we'd say, for example, "Please pull in this XXX thermal branch from
git.linaro.org/foo.git and this will be constantly rebased, so pull a new version of it everytime you recreate the tree".