[U-Boot] Custodian Repo for Broadcom (arm) boards

[Steve Rae]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:13:37PM -0700, Steve Rae wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:01:10PM -0700, Steve Rae wrote:
>> >> Hi Tom,
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:55:49AM -0700, Steve Rae wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Tom & Albert,
>> >> >> Please approve the creation of a custodian repo for the Broadcom (arm) boards.
>> >> >> ( Wolfgang already has my public key... )
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wolfgang stated:
>> >> >> > Before I can set up a new custodian repo, please post your
>> >> >> > offer on the U-Boot mailing list -  I think the chips in question
>> >> >> > belong to the ARM architecture (?), so both the ARM custodian (Albert)
>> >> >> > and Tom should agree with the creation of such a new repo.  Once I
>> >> >> > have their "go" it is only a matter of minutes.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, I do have a few BCM patches outstanding (and I'm build testing them
>> >> > now).  ELC kicked -rc1 out a week (I'll be tagging it once I have this
>> >> > series happy enough to push out with it).  Are you expecting the volume
>> >> > of boards to increase?  Thanks!
>> >>
>> >> No -- only planning to add 2 new boards....
>> >> It is just that with the current process, I waiting "months" to get
>> >> patches applied - so Marek suggested that maybe I need to be a
>> >> custodian, so that I can move things along....
>> >
>> > Er, months?  Sorry, I'm not seeing it right away at least:
>> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?submitter=64015&state=*
>> > (and questions about how did .... get into state ... ? are answered with
>> > "I took a stab at it").
>>
>> how about:
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?submitter=64015&state=&q=&archive=&delegate=
>> shows two outstanding from Feb 9  !!!
>> (plus the three that I assume you are currently working on.....)
>
> ... yes, the gadget ones that wouldn't go through a BCM tree anyhow :)
>
> But... I think I mis-assigned them in patchwork and it should be in my
> queue anyhow, sorry.
>

OK -- then I am OK to abandon this "custodian request" .....

I guess I just need to know:
-- what is a "typical" timeframe for getting stuff applied, and
-- "how" and "who" to nudge in order to get things moving along - when
that timeframe has expired....
-- how to escalate when those "nudges" seem to be ignored....

Thanks, Steve

> --
> Tom