lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support
    On Fri 2009-06-12 13:33:21, Ryan Mallon wrote:
    > Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
    > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 05:00:30AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
    > >> From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
    > >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:49:12 +0100
    > >>
    > >>> I can not keep up with the number of patches that need to be
    > >>> reviewed and ultimately merged. I know this, and I freely admit it,
    > >>> and I have done so on many occasions.
    > >> Then split up the responsibilities to other people instead of being
    > >> the choke point. Controlling everything isn't so important.
    > >
    > > Don't you think that I've been trying to get other people to be more
    > > involved?
    > >
    > > - I've been pushing people to send patches to the relevent mailing
    > > list(s) and maintainer(s) for years.
    > >
    > > - I've been pushing people to send their ARM patches to the ARM
    > > mailing list rather than directly into the patch system for review
    > > (it even has a comment telling people this) so that others can get
    > > involved in reviewing them, and sharing that work load.
    > >
    > > Do you think either have been anywhere near successful?
    > >
    > > For the most part, the answer is no. People concentrate on their own
    > > areas, and won't look at someone with a new class of platforms (eg,
    > > the STMP or W90x900 stuff).
    > >
    > > I'd absolutely love it if the review load could be shared, but for the
    > > most part it just doesn't happen. Everyone's far too busy with their
    > > own stuff to help out (and that's a reason that they'll give if tackled
    > > head on about it.)
    >
    > Question on this: I occasionally review patches where I have the
    > knowledge or interest. Most of the time however, I do not have the
    > hardware needed to actually test the patches, and so my reviews are
    > simply coding style, etc. I don't want to add my acked-by to something I
    > can't test, or am not at reasonably confident is okay (ie haven't
    > tested, but know the hardware well enough to be satisfied the patch is
    > okay by reading it).
    >
    > The problem I see for developers I do reviews for, is that they post a
    > patch, I do a code review, the post an update looking for an acked-by,
    > and the best I can say is "looks okay to me, but get someone else to ack
    > it". Whats the best approach here? Should I just add my Reviewed-by tag,
    > or should can/should I ack patches where I think the code is okay, but
    > can't test.

    I believe you have slightly higher standards than
    neccessary/desirable.

    I believe it is okay to ack a patch when you don't have a hardware;
    you can trust original submitter to test it on the hw. As long as the
    patch is not broken by design, or contain some gross uglyness...

    Pavel
    --
    (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
    (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-12 14:09    [W:0.025 / U:30.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site