On Mon, 26 Jun 2023, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 06:13:15PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2023, Sahin, Okan wrote:
> >
> > > >On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 08:39:38AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I'll try anything once!
> > > >
> > > >> Fair warning, I think this is going to massively complicate things.
> > > >
> > > >> Either we're going to be left with a situation where child-driver
> > > >> maintainers are scrabbling around looking for previous versions for the
> > > >> MFD pull-request or contributors being forced to wait a full cycle for
> > > >> their dependencies to arrive in the maintainer's base.
> > > >
> > > >If people are resending after the MFD has gone in they really ought to
> > > >be including the pull request in the cover letter, with some combination
> > > >of either referencing the mail or just saying "this depends on the
> > > >signed tag at url+tag", the same way they would for any other dependency.
> > > >
> > > >I can't see how you applying stuff when you can slow things down TBH,
> > > >the MFD bits will be applied faster and either people can pull in a
> > > >shared tag or you can apply more commits on top of the existing core
> > > >driver.
> > > >
> > > >> I'm not sure why simply providing your Ack when you're happy with the
> > > >> driver and forgetting about the set until the pull-request arrives, like
> > > >> we've been doing for nearly a decade now, isn't working for you anymore
> > > >> but I'm mostly sure this method will be a regression.
> > > >
> > > >Like I said I've not been doing that, I've mostly been just applying the
> > > >driver when it's ready. This might not have been so visible to you
> > > >since it means that the regulator driver doesn't appear in the series by
> > > >the time the MFD settles down. The whole "Acked-for-MFD" has always
> > > >been a bit confusing TBH, it's not a normal ack ("go ahead and apply
> > > >this, I'm fine with it") so it was never clear what the intention was.
> > > >
> > > >Before I started just applying the drivers there used to be constant
> > > >problems with things like tags going missing (which some of the time is
> > > >the submitter just not carrying them but can also be the result of some
> > > >churn causing them to be deliberately dropped due to changes) or
> > > >forgetting the series as you suggest and then not looking at some other
> > > >very similarly named series that was also getting lots of versions after
> > > >thinking it was one that had been reviewed already. It was all very
> > > >frustrating. Not doing the tags until the dependencies have settled
> > > >down means that if it's in my inbox it at least consistently needs some
> > > >kind of attention and that the submitter didn't drop tags or anything so
> > > >I know why there's no tag on it even though the version number is high,
> > > >though it's not ideal either.
> > >
> > > Hi Mark and Lee,
> > >
> > > Is there anything that I need to do for this patch set. I have received reviewed
> > > by tag for all of them so far.
> >
> > Since we are so late in the day, I'm going to just apply this for v6.5.
> >
> > The remainder can then be applied, friction free, for v6.6.
>
> Now we have undocmented bindings in use by the driver (as pointed out by
> 'make dt_compatible_check').
>
> The whole series has all the acks/reviews needed for you to apply the
> whole thing, so why not take the whole thing? Plus this series has been
> sitting for 2 months. Not a great experience for submitters...
Patches are missing Acked-by tags.
Reviewed-by != Acked-by
I cannot merge other subsystem's patches without and Acked-by.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
