On 12/08/2024 14:21, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> Yep, but to be fair the patchset did not say anything about >> dependencies. There is absolutely nothing in cover letter, nothing in >> the patches, so I do not wonder that this mishap happened. > > Still, one shouldn't take DT patches (which are even the last ones in > this series) until all other patches are at least in -next, or? Yes, > mistakes happen, so no big deal, but i2c is not to blame IMHO. No, it's not. It was just a ping. The issue is here not describing dependency, allowing Guenter to take the patch and not even telling him that now next has warning. :/ It's like entire weight is on maintainers and contributors care only about getting their patch inside. Once it is inside, not my problem anymore... :( > >> Depends whether you rely on being CC-ed here. Existing entries do not > > I don't rely on CC. I rely on patches being on the i2c list. > >> include you, thus you are not cc-ed on maintainers. Peter Rosin is, but >> it seems Peter does not apply patches. It could be intentional, but then >> I understand that all pings should go to Peter? > > Once Peter acks, I apply. He is the maintainer. Yet, he is very busy, so > I also apply when someone else I trust does a review. He is fine with Sure, that explains, so ping should not really go to you... > that and might chime in later, if needed. This patch here did not get > any review, sadly. As I said, resource problem. That being said, these > patches are somewhere on my todo list if nobody else steps up (what I > would prefer). But please, don't put pressure on me (or any other > potential reviewer) just because DT patches ended up upstream too early. Best regards, Krzysztof
