On Mon, 18 May 2015, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:10:49AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Fri, 15 May 2015, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:19:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 05:54:19PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're looking for me to review something you need to send it to me, > > > > > > > and the chances of me looking at it are very much increased if there's a > > > > > > > relevant subject line. I'm CCed (not even on the to list) on endless > > > > > > > large threads and reposts of patch serieses about MFD drivers most of > > > > > > > which are of very little relevance to me so they get ignored very > > > > > > > easily. > > > > > > > > > > > Calm down dear, it's only a commercial. > > > > > > > > > > > I wasn't having a pop. Rather empathising with your situation and > > > > > > facilitating a resend that you're likely to see. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure Johan will do the right thing. > > > > > > > > > > My point is that a simple resend has a reasonable chance of getting > > > > > dropped on the floor. > > > > > > > > As I say, I'm sure Johan will do what's required for that not to > > > > happen. > > > > > > Seriously? *Me* do the right thing? > > > > Yes, *you*. If a patch slips though a Maintainer's net, which does > > happen every so often [*], I'm sure even you are not infallible to > > that, a submitter must issue a RESEND (as you have now just done so). > > As you know, five reminders asking for an ack from Mark was sent by the > two of us combined without even an indication that the messages had been > noted over a period of almost two months. > > If Mark feels that he is getting spammed with unrelated MFD patches, > then *you* and Mark need to figure out a way to get a message across > when there actually is something he needs to look at. > > I don't care if it's with a special [Lee-wants-Marks-ack] subject > prefix, an irc message on Linaro's channels or a phone call, but it's not > something that a patch submitter for MFD should need to know about > (it obviously isn't even documented). > > > > We have a regression in your subsystems (mfd/regulator) with a fix > > > that's been sitting in both your mailboxes since March 25th. > > > > Fully aware and ready to apply once the correct process has been > > carried out. I get shirty when people submit MFD patches without > > permission, and I refuse to be a hypocrite. > > That's perfectly fine. Your subsystems intersect and you two need to > figure out how you communicate. That's all. This issue is out of the ordinary. Normally Mark is pretty good at providing me with the Acks I need. More commonly I have issues such as the one you are experiencing with non-responsive/inactive Maintainers. In future, for yourself and anyone else who is following this thread for 'fun', if a patch crosses multiple subsystems (which I try to keep to a minimum) it's probably best to indicate that in the subject line. mfd: regulator: <blah> ... would definitely get Marks attention. And yes, I know 'regulator' is mentioned in the subject line of the particular patch. :) -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html