Hi Am 13.07.23 um 16:10 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König: [...]
- Thomas Zimmermann
All data structures should be converted
naming: drm > *
[...]> I admit I'm not aware about the roles here, but up to then only Sean
Paul wrote a clear no and maybe Jani Nikula a small one. I interpreted Paul Kocialkowski's replay as indifferent to the renaming. All others were in favour or only criticised details and naming.
[...]
- Thomas Zimmermann
Agreed to Sean Paul about the too high downsides
I'd like to change my vote to - No, but if the others want this, I'm in favor of calling it 'drm'. Best regards Thomas
- Geert Uytterhoeven In favour (also before via irc) )?Ignoring those concernsI'm really surprised by this suggestion. Either I really missed something, or I'd like to ask these maintainers to communicate in a more obvious way. If I send a series and I get feedback like "If you rename drm_crtc.dev, you should also address *all* other data structures." (by Thomas Zimmermann) or "When you automatically generate the patch (with cocci for example) I usually prefer a single patch instead." (by Christan König) then I would expect that if they oppose the underlying idea of the series they would say so, too. I'm sorry, I cannot read a concern (to the underlying idea) from these replies. And so I addressed the feedback about the details with a new series to have an updated base for the discussion.and then sending a new version right away is, if not obnoxious, definitely aggressive.If this is how you experience my submission even after I tried to explain my real intentions, I'm sorry. And I'm sure there is a deep misunderstanding somewhere. Best regards Uwe
-- Thomas Zimmermann Graphics Driver Developer SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
