Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 08:11:54AM -0800, Mark Brown wrote: [...] > > This really is very disappointing. > > No it isn't. > > What is really disappointing is the lack of responsive maintainers for the > Samsung stuff. It took _two_ bloody months to get the Samsung platforms > sorted for the restart changes in spite of reminding, and a last minute > rush over the course of a couple of days (one _in_ the merge window) to > get it properly merged into my tree. > Yeah, I had to do earlier and it's true that many conflicts caused from my late ARM restart working for Samsung stuff. [...] > So, I support Arnd's view: the Samsung stuff is just too late. Even the > restart updates (which is what has caused this) were too late. Anything > which causes new merge conflicts in the Samsung code is not acceptable at > this point, even if it's a 'fix' patch. We've wasted far too much time > trying to get Samsung stuff sorted far too late in the cycle. > > Let this be an object lesson in what happens if you leave stuff until the > last minute. I will do more carefully next time and of course not too late. Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |