Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:26:34 +1200 | From | Ryan Mallon <> | Subject | Re: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support |
| |
Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Ryan Mallon wrote: > >> Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> >>> I think that you, as the ARM maintainer, should continue gathering all >>> the ARM subarchitectures into a coherent ARM tree and arbitrate >>> conflicts when they occur. You should especially keep a tight control >>> on the very core ARM code. But everything under arch/arm/mach-* you >>> should let people maintaining those have control of that themselves and >>> free yourself from that responsibility as much as possible. The current >>> directory structure is quite indicative of where the boundaries are >>> already. This way, if I make a mess of arch/arm/mach-orion5x/* then you >>> just need to pass the blame straight to me. >>> >> That works okay for the more popular sub-architectures like pxa, etc, >> where there are a lot of people to review code and sort out issues >> between themselves. However, for the architecture I do most of my work >> on, ep93xx, there are basically two of us, Hartley and myself, doing >> active work. >> >> It seems a bit dodgy if all the patches to ep93xx are written by one of >> us and acked by the other with no input from anybody else. It would be >> very easy for the ep93xx code to become and complete mess, and lack any >> coherency with the other sub-archs. I prefer having Russell, or somebody >> else, at least have a glance at the patches before they get applied. > > This is all fine. If you prefer some external help to judge your > patches that's OK. In fact I'm not advocating for people to stop > posting their patches to linux-arm-kernel at all. It is a good thing > for patches to be aired on the mailing list for everyone to see and > comment. > > However if you start gathering more developers around the ep93xx then > someone should take charge and be responsible for it. And this must not > necessarily be Russell as his cycles are not infinite.
Thats my point though: In the meantime, it falls on Russell by default to be the one to verify all the patches going through. I think the same is true for new architectures, if nobody else has the interest/hardware besides those posting the patches, then who is meant to do the reviewing/acking?
~Ryan
-- Bluewater Systems Ltd - ARM Technology Solution Centre
Ryan Mallon Unit 5, Amuri Park Phone: +64 3 3779127 404 Barbadoes St Fax: +64 3 3779135 PO Box 13 889 Email: ryan@bluewatersys.com Christchurch, 8013 Web: http://www.bluewatersys.com New Zealand Freecall Australia 1800 148 751 USA 1800 261 2934
| |