On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 05:37, Karl Beldan wrote:> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Mark> Brown<broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 09:26:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:>>>>> it could be. i was going by the changes that werent in 2.6.30. i>>> thought i looked for previous submissions, but i must have missed>>> previous attempts. i'm not familiar with alsa stuff, so i'm not>>>> The patch hadn't previously been sent in that form but it looks like>> it's attempting to fix a bug which had had some previous goes at fixing>> it that required updates.>>>>> always sure when i need to bang on Cliff to get things fixed up>>> (changes split / better comments / etc...).>>>> If you're not sure there's a case for better changelogs at least! :)>>>>> if fixes miss a merge window, then that's an issue. but in general,>>> users only see fixes per release, so sending things more quickly there>>> wouldnt really help ?>>>> The issue is that things are missing merge windows - they're getting>> sent in but if there's any review comments a revised version of the>> patch isn't getting posted until the next batch of submissions. It's>> these revisions rather than the initial submissions that I'm concerned>> about.>> This - f692fce - should not have reached upstream, how come ? i was going to send a revert for that and 2552a71-mike_______________________________________________Alsa-devel mailing listAlsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
