[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4 V2] doc: kerneldoc: Implant DocBook from Linux kernel

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Graeme Russ,

> Hi Marek,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> > Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
> > 
> >> Hi Marek,
> >> 
> >> Comments based on the assumption that we want to sync with the Linux
> >> tools.
> >> 
> >> General comment/hypothetical question: would it not be simpler to patch
> >> the existing Linux tools in-place so that we can use them on the U-Boot
> >> tree?
> > 
> > Yes, it is a good idea. I'll do that. The problem is, replies to my
> > patches do documentation mailing lists are slow, that's for one thing.
> > 
> > The other, much more grave and unpleasant is that we're way too far
> > behind the DM schedule. I don't know what to do, but since pushing stuff
> > upstream goes much slower than I expected, I will soon be left with no
> > option other than forking u- boot, finishing the university project and
> > -- at the end, without the team -- merge the stuff slowly back upstream.
> 
> If I were in your position, I would not hesitate for a minute to do a
> fork.

I do, bloody damnit! Just remember how it ended last time -- the result was a 
stupid useless piece of crap which was never merged back. Lot of wasted time 
etc.

> The beauty of the FLOSS model of development is that forking is
> trivial and if the fork has worthy features, merging later will meet
> with general enthusiasm from the community. The merge will probably
> happen faster than you think (and may actually happen in parallel so
> that when your project finishes, more than half of your work has
> already been integrated)

See above.

> And once you fork, all the bottlenecks of global community approval
> disappear.

And the fork will be sheets of crap, one on another ... because there'll be no 
proper review.

My position is that I DO NOT WANT TO DO IT ... unless I'm pushed to do so by the 
circumstances. And I'm reaching that point :'-C

> Regards,
> 
> Graeme

Best regards,
Marek Vasut