On 26.06.2023 16:17, Marijn Suijten wrote: > On 2023-06-26 11:41:39, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 25.06.2023 21:18, Marijn Suijten wrote: >>> On 2023-06-24 03:42:46, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>> On 24.06.2023 02:40, Marijn Suijten wrote: >>>>> Bring up the SM6125 DPU now that all preliminary series (such as INTF >>>>> TE) have been merged (for me to test the hardware properly) >>>> We should not repeat the same mistake in the future.. Finding a >>>> balance between releasing early and releasing what we can declare >>>> working and tested code is hard, but we waaaaaaaay overstayed on >>>> this one.. >>> >>> I don't understand what you mean by "mistake" at all. Yes the DPU >>> catalog portion of this series sat in my local branch for a very long >>> time. Yes it had to be rebased on top of conflicts many many times. >>> >>> However, that time has also been used to fix and extend DPU where >>> necessary, instead of submitting a half-broken or half-incomplete >>> catalog entry... >>> >>> Re "we overstayed": you could have asked to clean up and send my patch, >>> so I don't take this as a mistake on my part as you are completely aware >>> of my time schedule ;) >> I didn't mean to pick on you. I just wanted to emphasize that a more >> upstream-forward approach would have saved us quite some time on the >> rebasing and cleaning-up front. > > That is how it comes across ;) - our dream is all about upstream-first > but as you know this becomes a mess really quickly when things are > blocked on dependencies and you're working on 5 different features and > testing across ±8 different Sony platforms on ±14 different devices at > once... all in a limited portion of free time. > > Fwiw cleaning-up would have had to happen either way, and would have > taken the same amount of time regardless of whether this series is > submitted now or two months ago. > >>>> Konrad >>>> , and most >>> >>> Also here, don't forget to re-quote my message if you break half-way in >>> the line. >> Ugh. All the time I've been doing this I thought thunderfox was smart >> enough to do it for me. Apparently not and you're the 1st one to point >> that out. > > You're welcome! > (Though I thought it should be visible in Thunderburd, unless you're not > in plaintext mode? Does it still show the "this is quoted" line in > front of the broken sentence?) It doesn't, but the text stays blue (as if it was) Konrad > > - Marijn
