At Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:25:50 -0500,
Timur Tabi wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > Oh, OK, then I must have missed that. Could you repost?
> > And, this *must* go to 2.6.27, or not?
>
> The only patch that needs to go into 2.6.27 is the one titled "alsa: make the
> CS4270 driver a new-style I2C driver" from me.
So, do you mean that this patch (ASoC: Fix cs4270 error path) doesn't
have to go into 2.6.27? Hell, there are still things unclear to
me...
> This one is missing from Linus'
> tree.
It's already in 2.6.27-rc8:
ec2cd95f340fb07b905839ee219b3846ecf58396 ALSA: make the CS4270 driver a new-style I2C driver
> I notice that "ALSA: ASoC: Fix another cs4270 error path" is in Linus' tree, but
> nothing else is.
>
> > Frankly, this series of cs4270 patches have been hard to handle
> > because it was always unclear what the patch is for.
> > The description "It's for 2.6.x" is too ambiguous because it doesn't
> > always mean the purpose but also can mean the based version of the
> > patch. So, a more clear sign would be really helpful for me at the
> > next time...
>
> I can do that, but I'm not sure how I can be any clearer. "This is for 2.6.x",
> to me at least, means exactly that - that this patch should be applied to the
> branch for 2.6.27, which is either a release candidate (i.e. 2.6.27-rcX) or a
> bug fix (i.e. 2.6.27.x), depending on what's next.
>
> If you want me to use different wording, just tell me what I should say.
Just suggest more clearly that your patch is to be merged as soon as
possible. For example, "apply this to next 2.6.27-rc8 pull request"
or "merge this to the upstream immediately", or so.
In short: "A is for B" is too passive and ambiguous. Rather say
simply "Do X".
thanks,
Takashi
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
