<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 26, 2007 5:38 PM, Wolfgang Denk <<a href="mailto:wd@denx.de">wd@denx.de</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">In message <<a href="mailto:Pine.LNX.4.61.0712112338550.25073@ld0175-tx32.am.freescale.net">Pine.LNX.4.61.0712112338550.25073@ld0175-tx32.am.freescale.net</a>> you wrote:<br>> This includes current changes in the libfdt testing branch, as they are
<br>> required for the 85xx changes to work. If we need to rework this a<br>> different way, let me know. I'm not afraid of rebasing.<br><br></div>I really hate such pull requests that include changes from other
<br>repositories like yours is doing.<br><br>If you need the libfdt stuff, fine, please use it for your work, but<br>do not include this into the branch you request me to pull from.<br><br>Please keep the custodian's repositories separated and allow me to
<br>decide what to pull, and when.</blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I understand, completely. It's a messy problem. I made sure to alert you to this so that you would have the opportunity to hold off on pulling my tree in the event you wanted more time to look at the FDT tree.
</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>However, there's no way I could have applied any of the other patches that were 85xx-specific without those changes--they were dependent. In the future, I can choose to reject or hold off on applying any patches which don't apply to the current custodian repository. But the drawback is that people who are working on the cutting edge will have to self-maintain their patches longer.
</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>My intent in pulling in the fdt changes and Kumar's patches was to have the custodian tree represent the current state-of-the-art of 85xx development, thus allowing Kumar to move ahead, and allowing others to build off what he has done. If you had decided to reject any of the FDT patches, I would have happily (if not cheerfully) rebased my tree, and either fixed up the latest patches on my own, or requested that Kumar resubmit. This seemed to me to be a reasonable way forward: it allows development to continue, while keeping the main u-boot tree free from development work.
</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Anyway, I'm fine with whatever policy we want to follow. But if this happens again, I'd like to know what to do. :) I can always just create a side tree which has the latest state of development, while I wait for any dependent changes to propagate into the mainline.
</div><div><br></div><div>Andy</div></div>