[U-Boot] Please pull u-boot-mpc83xx

[Kumar Gala]

On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Kim Phillips wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:00:36 +0200
> Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
>
>> Dear Kim Phillips,
>>
>> In message <20090821174533.d26d421b.kim.phillips at freescale.com> you  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Heiko Schocher (1):
>>>>>      mpc83xx: add missing CSCONFIG_ODT_WR_CFG for 832x CPUs
>>>>
>>>> Umm.... please do not edit the Subject line of the commit messages.
>>>> At least, please tell me explicitly if you do. The reason is that I
>>>> cannot find any such patch anywhere - because the real Subject was
>>>> "83xx: add..."
>>>
>>> sounds like I shouldn't be prefixing mpc83xx patch subjects with
>>> mpc83xx for consistency.  I'd rather keep that habit myself, but if
>>> that's what you prefer..
>>
>> I like consistency, too. But for me it's also important to be able
>> to associate commits to the actual postings on the mailing list. The
>> best solution would be if the sumbitters could already use such
>> Subject: lines.
>>
>> Maybe we should formulate such a rule / requirement / wish ?
>
> you can try, but most of the patches that come in for 83xx are fine,
> just without that 'mpc83xx: ' up front (esp. the 'mpc' part).
>
> Personally, I'm in favour of dynamic learning and adapting of our
> contributors, rather than establishing hard rules - I don't want to
> have to reject a patch for something so easy to fix.
>
> Might I suggest we use a more sophisticated patch tracking tool than
> sorting inboxes, such as patchworks?

I'm in agreement w/Kim on this.  I've been doing similar commit header  
editing and I've been doing on the kernel side for sometime.  It seems  
easier to look at using patchworks (we can probably use the setup that  
the ozlabs.org guys have already if we want).

- k