On Tue August 14 2012 15:04:17 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > In order to help people to know about the status of the pending patches, > I'm summing-up the patches pending for merge on this email. > > If is there any patch missing, please check if it is at patchwork > before asking what happened: > http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/list/?state=* > > If patchwork didn't pick, then the emailer likely line-wrapped or > corrupted the patch. > > As announced, patchwork is now generating status change emails. So, > those that didn't decide to opt-out emails there will receive > notifications every time a patch is reviewed. Unfortunately, > patchwork doesn't send emails is when a patch is stored there. > > For the ones explicitly copied on this email, I kindly ask you to update > me about the review status of the patches below. > > In special, on my track list, there are three patches from 2011 still > not reviewed. Driver maintainers: I kindly ask you to be more active on > patch reviewing, not holding any patch for long periods like that, > and sending pull request more often. You should only be holding patches > if you have very strong reasons why this is required. > > A final note: patches from driver maintainers with git trees are generally > just marked as RFC. Well, I still applied several of them, when they're > trivial enough and they're seem to be addressing a real bug - helping > myself to not need to re-review them later. Does that mean that if you are a maintainer with a git tree such as myself you should make a pull request instead of posting a [PATCH] because otherwise you mark it as an RFC patch? I often just post simple patches instead of making a pull request, and I always use [RFC PATCH] if I believe the patches need more discussion. So if I post a [PATCH] as opposed to an [RFC PATCH], then that means that I believe that the [PATCH] is ready for merging. If I should no longer do that, but make a pull request instead, then that needs to be stated very explicitly by you. Otherwise things will get very confusing. > I really expect people to add more "RFC" on patches. We're having a net > commit rate of about 500-600 patches per merge window, and perhaps 3 or 4 > times more patches at the ML that are just part of some discussions and > aren't yet on their final version. It doesn't scale if I need to review > ~3000 patches per merge window, as that would mean reviewing 75 patches per > working day. Unfortunately, linux-media patch reviewing is not my full-time > job. So, please help me marking those under-discussion patches as RFC, in > order to allow me to focus on the 600 ones that will actually be merged. In fairness: often you get no comments when you post the RFC patch series, but once you post what you consider to be the final version you suddenly do get comments. > == Silvester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxx> == > > Aug, 2 2012: [PATH,v3,1/2] v4l: Add factory register values form S5K4ECGX sensor http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/13580 Sangwook Lee <sangwook.lee@xxxxxxxxxx> > Aug, 2 2012: [PATH,v3,2/2] v4l: Add v4l2 subdev driver for S5K4ECGX sensor http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/13581 Sangwook Lee <sangwook.lee@xxxxxxxxxx> > Aug,10 2012: [1/2,media] s5p-tv: Use devm_regulator_get() in sdo_drv.c file http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/13719 Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> > Aug,10 2012: [2/2,media] s5p-tv: Use devm_* functions in sii9234_drv.c file http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/13720 Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> > Aug,10 2012: [RESEND] v4l/s5p-mfc: added support for end of stream handling in MFC http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/13721 Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Aug,10 2012: [v4,1/2] v4l: Add factory register values form S5K4ECGX sensor http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/13727 Sangwook Lee <sangwook.lee@xxxxxxxxxx> > Aug,10 2012: [v4,2/2] v4l: Add v4l2 subdev driver for S5K4ECGX sensor http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/13728 Sangwook Lee <sangwook.lee@xxxxxxxxxx> > Jun,11 2012: [1/3,media] s5p-tv: Replace printk with pr_* functions http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/11666 Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> > Jun,11 2012: [2/3,media] s5p-mfc: Replace printk with pr_* functions http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/11667 Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> > Jun,11 2012: [3/3,media] s5p-fimc: Replace printk with pr_* functions http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/11668 Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> > Jun,12 2012: [1/1, media] s5p-fimc: Replace custom err() macro with v4l2_err() macr http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/11675 Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> One example where you apparently marked a [PATCH] as RFC is this one: http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/13659/ Is this because Sylwester has his own git tree and you were expecting a pull request? In this case it is a simple compiler warning fix which I would really like to see merged since it fixes a fair number of compiler warnings during the daily build. Regards, Hans -- 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
