[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/2] rockchip: Initial RK3368 and GeekBox support

[Andreas Färber]

Am 07.08.2016 um 15:31 schrieb Tom Rini:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 06:05:29PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> Am 06.08.2016 um 06:30 schrieb Simon Glass:
>>> Hi Andreas,
>>>
>>> On 17 July 2016 at 19:06, Andreas Färber <afaerber at suse.de> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This series adds initial support for RK3368 SoC and GeekBox.
>>>> For more details see the commit message.
>>>>
>>>> Will need to be rebased onto Heiko's cleanups and Kever's RK3399 series.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>> Cc: Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com>
>>>> Cc: Heiko Stübner <heiko at sntech.de>
>>>>
>>>> Andreas Färber (2):
>>>>   dts: Import rk3368-geekbox.dts
>>>>   ARM64: rockchip: Add initial support for RK3368 based GeekBox
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you planning to respin these patches?
>>
>> Eventually...?
>>
>>> I'd like to get them applied soon.
>>
>> And I'd like to get my work recognized! However, despite our previous
>> IRC chat, I had to find out _while_ replying to the rk3399 mails that
>> you had once again not just applied all patches (twenty minutes after
>> ack'ing them on a Saturday) but already sent a pull on Tuesday my
>> nighttime that I was not CC'ed on and that Tom has merged the night
>> after. So it feels like I'm wasting my time here and consequently I
>> stopped my review and rebase.
> 
> In the U-Boot community, we are not in the habit of cc'ing everyone with
> a change in a given pull request.  Is there a tool the kernel folks use
> here that makes this easy?

Not that I'm aware of.

But that is besides the point, as my very complaint is that I'm not
credited in the patches that got merged, so no tool could've extracted
my name for CC'ing.

It's about Simon having mismerged those patches and having overlooked
unresolved review comments of mine for those patches before and me
specifically having complained to him about not waiting for my
Reviewed-by before applying them. So him seeing that I did not reply to
his Saturday mails, I feel it would've been fair in this particular case
a) to ping me again after the weekend and b) to let me know that he is
no longer waiting for my review comments or that I really need to hurry
up with an objection until X. He did not say so in a reply that reached
my inbox, and I was not CC'ed on the pull request itself, thus a pull
request behind my back.

I'm not too deep into U-Boot, so maybe there was a reason for this
hush-hush workflow, but then at least the communication was fairly bad.

Had I known that the pull is already on the list, I wouldn't have
replied with a Reviewed-by for 1/4 that same day (which surely Simon was
CC'ed on) or I could've asked Tom to hold off merging it until I'm done
reviewing the next day.

> And the rule of thumb that I use, and I try and get everyone else to use
> as well is that a patch should be out for a week before it gets picked
> up and merged as that should give everyone time to review, comment and
> test.  Did that not happen with the patches Simon picked up?

Slightly less than a week. For some other projects it's ~two weeks.
Also again note that this is not about some random patch but one where
Simon specifically said he would be away, that he would exchange the
patches on his branch where necessary and where he asked me to "sing".
It leaves a bad taste that Simon was absent himself the week the patches
were posted but apparently expects me to be available whenever he is. I
don't work on U-Boot as a job, and for rebasing rk3368 patches - which
many of my review comments resulted from - I need access to the hardware
for testing.

Note that I was similarly surprised how quickly two patches of mine went
into his tree, with just one day in between and despite conflicts
between my rk3368 and Kever's rk3399 preparations. I can see that having
patches in a tree facilitates testing, but it also prevents serious peer
review when not just staging but also merging them.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160807/a5e61f3d/attachment.sig>