On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 06:45:42PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > Review rarely happens all at once, unless very few people look at > the code. Discouraging review is *extremely* strange. I'm not discouraging review. I'm saying that making inappropriate comments isn't helpful. Yes, your comments are right, but are they appropriate to getting the OMAP watchdog drivers updated in mainline, or are they more appropriate in a general sense to all watchdog drivers, and therefore should be separate from that task? > > My point is that we currently have a BIG problem, and that is the OMAP > > fork being so far out of line with mainline, it isn't funny. > > I call it a "branch" myself; "fork" sounds confrontational. Call it what you want. > When more of the arch/arm/* core bits merge -- like the clock and > power domain updates ISTR you wanted to hold back -- then the rest > starts to make sense upstream. I never said that - you're twisting my words as normal. > Yes, there are two unresolved issues in patch #1 which you seem > to have successfully buried with your flamage. Easy fixes, just > strike a line and truncate a path. The sort of thing that often > gets queued in the MM tree as a "fixup" and then merged into a > main patch. Yet again you use confrontational language, inflaming this discussion. Okay, I give up. Folk here can carry on struggling to get their code into mainline with endless reviews and getting fed up with having to constantly rework the code over and over again. Clearly my views aren't welcome. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
