On 2012-02-14 17:09:55 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Devin Heitmueller > <dheitmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Looks sane to me, and really needs to get in ASAP. I'd even suggest we > >> get it sent to stable, as these newer firmware HDPVR are pretty wonky > >> with any current kernel. > >> > >> Acked-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Where did the process break down here? Taylor did this patch *months* > > ago, and there has been absolutely no comment with why it wouldn't go > > upstream. If he hadn't been diligent in pinging the ML repeatedly, it > > would have been lost. > > It looks like for some reason, the v3 patch got eaten. :\ > > http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/8183/ is the v2, in state Changes > Requested, but you can see in the comments a mail that says v3 is > attached, which contains the requested change (added s-o-b). A v3 > patch object is nowhere to be found though. The patch *was* indeed > attached to the mail though, I've got it here in my linux-media > mailbox. > > So at least on this one, I think I'm blaming patchwork, but it would > be good to better understand how that patch got eaten, and to know if > indeed its happened to other patches as well. Patchwork ignored the patch because of its mime type. Patchwork only handles text/{x-patch,x-diff,plain} but the v3 patch was attached as application/octet-stream. I have a clumsy patch to handle application/octet-stream for libav's patchwork instance. I'll try to find time to clean it up and submit it upstream. Janne -- 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
