On Wednesday 10 June 2009 22:20:03 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > On Wednesday 10 June 2009 20:17:53 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > > > > > Please pull from > > > > http://www.linuxtv.org/hg/~hverkuil/v4l-dvb-subdev2 for the > > > > following: > > > > > > > > - v4l2: add new s_config subdev ops and > > > > v4l2_i2c_new_subdev_cfg/board calls - v4l2-device: fix incorrect > > > > kernel check > > > > - v4l-compat: add I2C_ADDRS macro. > > > > - v4l2: update framework documentation. > > > > - v4l2-subdev: remove unnecessary check > > > > > > Do I understand this right, that these patches have not been posted > > > to the list? > > > > The idea is that you click on the link and look at the patches through > > the hg web frontend. > > And then? > > > > At least I haven't found them in online and in my local > > > archives. If it's really so, sorry, this doesn't seem very productive > > > to me... We have discussed this with Mauro on IRC, he didn't agree > > > with me, he thought it was acceptable in many cases... Sorry, cannot > > > agree. > > > > Both methods (a pull request or a patch series) are used and personally > > I have no preference, although currently I have a script that > > simplifies these pull requests so I generally use that. A patch series > > makes it easier to reply with review comments, while I think a pull > > request reduces mailinglist traffic and actually makes it easier to do > > the actual reviews. > > I think, patches posted to the list for reviews with a following pull > request (if no rework needed of course) is the most reviewer-friendly, > which is also what I so far have seen on all other lists I subscribe to > (arm, ppc, usb, scsi, lkml, i2c,...). Have you seen those huge mailing > threads from Greg K-H with all patches in his queue preceding his pull > requests (I hope I reproduce his work flow correctly here, any mistakes > are mine and unintended)? > > Are you really saying that it's equally convenient for you to review / > reply to patch on ML and to patch in some repository from a pull request? > Especially when there are multiple patches in that pull and you have to > click through them all, jumping back and forth between your mail client > and a browser?... > > If all are so much concerned about the ML traffic (which I don't > understand either, filtering and ignoring uninteresting mails is easy > enough these days), maybe we should split into devel and user? Sorry, I > really don't understand. I'll go ask members of other MLs what they think > about "clicking" through patches... Um, you are asking the wrong person. It's one of the two methods used on this list. Yes, pull requests are unusual compared to other lists (and so is the use of hg instead of git for that matter due to historical reasons). If Mauro says: use patch series, then I'll modify my workflow. If you prefer to see these subdev patches as a patch series, then I can do that for you. I have no preference myself. It's also a discussion I have no wish to go into. So if you see a pull request from me and prefer to have it as a patch series, just mail me and I'll do it. No problem. Regards, Hans > > Thanks > Guennadi > --- > Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. > Freelance Open-Source Software Developer > http://www.open-technology.de/ -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG Telecom -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
