> > Again, that's not what I said. It's great that your subsystem is being > > improved, but insisting that anyone who submits new code to rebase > > on top of some development patches which only exist in mail form, and > > refusing to take patches until they do so doesn't seem right to me. > > No policy is perfect and nothing can be decided solely on single > policy. There of course are trade-offs to make depending on the > specific circumstances. The problem, here, is that what has been > going on is skewed towards one extreme and has potential to develop > into a fairly large mess if left uncorrected. > > The message I've been sending out has been pretty clear. There are > multiple people duplicating about the same thing in their drivers. > Fortunately, Hans' refactoring is pretty close to completion and > should help simplifying most of them. I'm not even asking you to do > the bulk of work. Just take a look at it and help / push if you can. > It may be unfortunate that the circumstances haven't been completely > aligned for your convenience but that's what needs to be done to keep > things sustainable. I understand this. Thanks for taking the time to explain properly. FWIW, I have now managed to rebase the driver on top of Hans' work and I am now in the process of converting it to the new way of working. > This is a collaborative work and what I asked you isn't some > insurmountable amount of extra work. It's just beyond me that your > response is "it's not fair". No wonder the whole thing has been > drifting towards mess. That's not how this works. Judging from your > linaro address, I assume you have been involved with some upstream > work, how can this possibly be your response? Such attitude is > actively harmful and has no place in upstream development. > > Again, of course, there can be trade-offs. We sometimes do need to > take termporal hits in maintainability for faster hardware enablement > or whatnot; however, we can't do that without trust that the people > dumping stuff which needs later cleanups would actually help. > Unfortnately, I have close to zero trust given the recent developments > and your "it's not fair, that's not my responsibility" attitude > clearly confirms the conclusion. > > So, please take long look at how you perceive upstream development. > It's a collaborative process. Other people don't owe you by default. Please refrain from adding quotation marks around things I didn't actually say. I didn't say that this whole process was unfair. I was pertaining to the fact that requesting that a driver is converted to a non-existing API was wrong. As it currently stands the driver uses the correct one. I also said that I'd happily convert it over when the clean-ups are actually applied. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
