On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 09:05:24PM +0200, David Härdeman wrote: >On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:45:42PM +0200, David Härdeman wrote: >>On 2015-06-18 23:23, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>>Em Sun, 14 Jun 2015 01:44:54 +0200 >>>David Härdeman <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >>>>Mauro....wake up? I hope you're not planning to push the current code >>>>upstream??? >>> >>>What's there are planned to be sent upstream. If you think that something >>>is not mature enough to be applied, please send a patch reverting it, >>>with "[PATCH FIXES]" in the subject, clearly explaining why it should be >>>reverted for me to analyze. Having Antti/James acks on that would help. >> >>This thread should already provide you with all the information you need why >>the patches should be reverted (including Antii saying the patches should be >>reverted). >> >>The current code includes hilarious "features" like producing different >>results depending on module load order and makes sure we'll be stuck with a >>bad API. Sending them upstream will look quite foolish... > >And now the patches have been submitted and comitted upstream. What's >your plan? Leave it like this? Mauro, I see that you've applied four of my patches...thanks for that...but the question is still what you plan to do about the patches that should be reverted....4.2-rc2 was recently released and I'm still not seeing any action on this while time is running out...? -- David Härdeman -- 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
