> > Note: There are folks whose contributions are reduced to > "vp" "rr" "sp" etc.. I personally have no clue who they are > but I guess they would rather be in git log than in anonymous > initials if given a choice today.. -- You and me might not know who "vp", "rr", and "sb" are :), but these guys know who they are and it is upto them as how they want to refer themselves. I think it is a disregard to these developers who might have worked over the years on Bridge if we just remove their names completely. > Contributors can be specified as such: a contributors section > at the top. No need to keep the revision history just for that. -- This looks like the way to go. Thank you, Best regards, Hari > -----Original Message----- > From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 5:21 AM > To: Menon, Nishanth > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi DOYU; > Ameya Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando > Subject: Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Menon, Nishanth <nm@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Felipe, > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Felipe Contreras [mailto:felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:17 AM > >> To: Menon, Nishanth > >> Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kanigeri, Hari; Hiroshi > DOYU; Ameya > >> Palande; Guzman Lugo, Fernando > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tidspbridge: remove revision history > >> > >> >> - *! Revision History: > >> >> - *! ================ > >> >> - *! 24-Feb-2003 vp: Code Review Updates. > >> >> - *! 18-Oct-2002 sb: Ported to Linux platform. > >> >> - *! 03-Jul-2001 rr: Removed kfuncs.h because of build errors. > >> >> - *! 07-Dec-1999 ag: Fxn error now causes a WinCE DebugBreak; > >> >> - *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error. > >> >> - *! > >> > But we did not have git history 1999-2003. we planning > on loosing > >> > these > >> contribs? > >> > >> Only if you want dspbridge to be merged which as time passes it's > >> becoming more clear that you don't. I'm not a kernel > developer, but I > > Errr.. Not my attempt at a flame war ;).. But then, I am > not sure if my comment meant anything of the sort :)... > > Contrary to what it might seem I'm not attempting a flame war either. > > It's not because of your comment, it's because TI has been > very slow cleaning up the driver and reluctant of integrating > clean-up patches. > > It seems to me as if TI thinks this driver is just fine, > which is clearly not the case. > > >> would challenge you to find a diver that has 1000 lines of > revision > >> history in the source code. > > <snip> > >> > >> >> - *! 30-Aug-1999 ag: Now uses GP_printf for printf and error. > >> > >> Not printk? I assume this is not related to Linux then. > >> > >> > >> Are we going to find an issue at some point in time that > we'll say: > >> oh crap! if only we had the revision history log we could solve it! > > Errr... in the old times of cvs kernel, before we shifted > to bitkeeper and later to git, rev history was unfortunately > necessary to maintain some sort of acknowledgement of > contributions. Just greping linux-omap master branch " grep > -Ri "Revision History" drivers/|cut -d ":" -f1|wc -l" shows > me 227 files of similar drivers- legacy - agreed. I think > bridge is in such a legacy driver. > > That shows me 31 files, none of which have more than a couple > hundred lines, that is of course on linux mainline. > > BTW this is faster: > git grep -i -l "Revision History" -- drivers/ | wc -l > > > If any new changes are done, it makes no sense to introduce > an entry in the revision history - agreed. These driver files > have a history and folks have done some work to make it > useful, to remove their contributions would be, IMHO, our > disregard for what ever they did (good or bad).. ;) But then, > that is just my opinion.. > > > > Note: There are folks whose contributions are reduced to > "vp" "rr" "sp" etc.. I personally have no clue who they are > but I guess they would rather be in git log than in anonymous > initials if given a choice today.. > > Contributors can be specified as such: a contributors section > at the top. No need to keep the revision history just for that. > > >> I doubt that, the revision history is useless without the actual > >> changes. These lines are just introducing noise. > >> > > > > DSPBridge has definitely a long way to go before being > merged into mainline kernel. Coding standard is one part of > the story. Is this part of a code cleanup effort to prep the > code for merge to kernel? I think I have seen tons of > discussion on this previously.. If we are planning on > prepping this driver for mainline integration that is another > discussion and this patch probably is a tiny fragment to > that. The bunch of history starts at [1] though.. > > I'm interested on getting this into the mainline so I took > the simplest of my cleanup patches and the one I thought > would be less controversial. > > If TI does not intend to submit this to mainline it would be > nice to say so, that way the people interested can stop > waiting and take action. > > I myself am tired of waiting. > > -- > Felipe Contreras > > -- 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
