[U-Boot-Users] Pull request u-boot-blackfin.git

[Haavard Skinnemoen]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:17:34 -0500
Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo.org> wrote:

> ive had no involvement in the past development.  if you want to say it sucked 
> or complain about how it was done, i dont really care.  only moving forward 
> from the current situation matters to me.

I'm not saying it sucks. You're the one who said it's broken ;-)

> as for getting it to work, i dont see the value in getting an old dead version 
> of the Blackfin tree working when i have a clean rewritten tree to merge.  if 
> i get the old one to boot, so what ?  the resulting code base isnt 
> supported ... if someone says "i tried to do XYZ with the Blackfin code and 
> it didnt work", i'm going to look at it and say "it works with this other 
> code base, so i dont care.  you can wait until i finish merging this tree."

That's why we do incremental improvements so that you can separate the
fixes from the other stuff and submit them even if there isn't a merge
window open.

> > There are way too many useless commands in the tree as it is, we don't
> > want even more unreviewed crap sneaking in through the back door.  
> 
> if you look at all the new commands you'll see that (1) they're optional and 
> (2) they expose Blackfin specific functionality.  these affect no other 
> arches.

First, if they're blackfin-specific, what are they doing under common/?

Second, the SPI driver that broke the tree for almost four weeks was
optional and ppc-specific. Have you run tests on all architectures so
that you can be 100% sure that you're not breaking anything this late
in the release cycle?

The avr32 architecture broke three times during the Linux 2.6.25-rc1
merge window, as did lots of other architectures (which isn't a huge
deal since it was, after all, during the merge window, but it breaks
bisectability). In two of the cases it was caused by patches that were
deemed so simple that they didn't get proper review and were never
exposed in -mm.

Which is why I've been a bit grumpy lately with respect to real and
potential breakage in mainline, in case anyone wondered.

Your tree touches common code and you're asking for it to be merged
without any review at all. I don't think that's a good idea.

Haavard