From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: Video Card to Lite5200 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Wolfgang Denk In-Reply-To: <20060701091507.EA1F4352681@atlas.denx.de> References: <20060701091507.EA1F4352681@atlas.denx.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:29:39 +1000 Message-Id: <1151746179.19419.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev list , roger blofeld , linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 11:15 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <1151709367.27137.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> you wrote: > > > > > I don;t know - the patches were submitted to this list a long time > > > ago; we added them to our repository without any additional problems; > > > see http://www.denx.de/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=linux-2.6-denx.git > > > > Any reason why you keep that repository instead of submiting the patches > > for proper upstream inclusion or to linuxppc-dev at least ? > > We submit patches every now and then, as time permits. My intention > is to keep the differences between our tree and kernel.org minimal. > > But you know how this goes: just adding support for a new board means > sending patches to the linuxppc_dev, mtd, i2c, usb, lm_sensors, ... > mailing lists. Then you have to wait some time, then you resend. and > you have to keep track of all these things. And the board support > will not work before the last piece of the puzze has been accepted > and merged and pushed upstream. All this takes a lot of effort and > even more calendar time. We need a way to provide a solution to our > customers fast - that's why we maintain our own development branch. > > I'd be happy if you could recommend a better approach to handle this. Oh, it's fine to maintain a dev. branch, but I haven't seen you submit stuff to linuxppc-dev for some time so I wanted to make sure you were still on track :) Ben.