Em 19-01-2011 09:53, Hans Verkuil escreveu: >> Em 19-01-2011 05:39, Hans Verkuil escreveu: >>> Hi Mauro, >>> >>> I saw that 2.6.38-rc1 was released. I also noticed that not all the >>> patches >>> that are in the for_2.6.38-rc1 branch are in 2.6.38-rc1. >> >> Yes. Unfortunately, when I was sending the pull request yesterday, I >> noticed >> an issue on my linux next tree, and I had to abort its send. After that, >> Linus >> released -rc1, before I have time to fix it. >> >> People should really send me patches for the next window before the start >> of the >> merge window, as doing it during the merge window makes my work harder and >> may >> cause troubles like that. >> >> The net result is that most patches were submitted in time and were >> applied upstream. >> Of course, there are usual fix patches sent during the merge window, that >> will be sent >> upstream anyway during the rc period. > > Speaking of that, my prio patches and the dsbr100 patches (with the new > v4l2_device release callback) can be moved to 2.6.39. If they can be > merged fairly early on, then I can build on those. > >> There are two patch series with new stuff submitted in time and merged on >> my >> tree that didn't reach upstream: >> - vb2/s5p-fimc - they required me more time to review - I also spent 3 >> days testing it; >> - ngene - there were a pending API discussion - I waited for a while to >> see if >> there were some solution, before deciding to merge and move the >> problematic >> code to staging. >> >> So, I'll need to dig into the pending patches, in order to send the ones >> that >> are acceptable after the end of the merge window, and letting the other >> patches >> for .39. I'll likely try to send the two above and the dib0700 patches on >> a separate >> pull request, but this pull request might be rejected. >> >>> We want to rename video_device to v4l2_devnode. So let me know when I >>> can >>> finalize my patches and, most importantly, against which branch. >> >> It is too late for that. As I said you, the better time for doing that is >> during >> the merge window. Linus said me that he don't want to make life easier for >> function >> rename. So, he won't be accepting such patch after the merge window. > > You were going to tell me when you had finished merging so that I wouldn't > aim at a moving target. This is very annoying. The vb2 merge took a longer time than I expected. Sorry for that. Cheers, Mauro -- 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
