Daniel, On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:57 +0000, dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 08:10:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > This is not something I get to decide. Nevertheless, given that this > > file shouldn't have been merged to begin with, I'd appreciate it if some > > deadline could be agreed upon. > > I think I merged it actually, but there's no rules about what gets merged. How when what order, etc. > It's all free form. There do not seem to be formal rules. But there surely are some requirements for code to be added. One of the requirements is, I think, that it should build. This file cannot be built: it is not wired into a Makefile and it also includes, what appears to be, its own header file, but that header is not part of the tree. Even the most dubious of code in drivers/staging is expected to "compile properly"! > > That being said, I'm not sure how having just this file in mainline > > helps your development efforts. It seems it did receive some updates > > for, well, treewide stuff. But it surely didn't get build coverage or > > runtime testing. So would you lose much if it only remains in your > > development tree? > > It's effort to remove it.. Your asking for it to get removed, then re-added.. That sounds > like a fairly large amount of effort vs just leaving it in place. Yes, it takes some effort to remove code. And it will also take effort to re-add that code later. But I think that's a risk one runs with code that has clearly never been buildable. Paul Bolle -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
