From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:41:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20110122204129.GA8666@infradead.org> References: <20110121095658.1ab623fe@jbarnes-desktop> <1295632828.19880.22.camel@m0nster> <20110121100441.06a94482@jbarnes-desktop> <1295633882.19880.31.camel@m0nster> <1295642995.19880.42.camel@m0nster> <1295643762.25868.31.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1295645098.22882.1.camel@m0nster> <20110122122018.GC5194@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:43363 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751236Ab1AVUmS (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:42:18 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110122122018.GC5194@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Pekka Enberg , Daniel Walker , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jesse Barnes , Dima Zavin , Joe Perches , davidb@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:20:18PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > I've asked Daniel in private whether he'd mind posting the original > set of patches which he based his work on to this thread. > > I suspect that the situation is that there's many patches which he's > taken from the repository and consolidated them down into a nice set > of easy to review patches. > > One of the problems of preserving the micro-detail of history right > from the early inception of support for a platform is that quite often > the early support is buggy or broken - it might not even compile. There > may be 20 or so patches on top of that which eventually get it to a > usable state. > > Do we really want to put off people from reviewing patches because of > the size of micro-development that happened prior to getting to a point > where the result of that development is usable? No, not at all. And I'm really annoyed at all the pointless flaming here as people obviously never had to massage a completely messy repository into something submittable. That usually doesn't just include making useful commits, but also updates to current APIs, bug fixing, removing crap that should never make it's way upstream (and Android had quite a lot of the latter last time I looked). The only think that Daniel did wrong was to not attribute the original authors in the commit message, and not explaining his own contribution. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@infradead.org (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:41:29 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support In-Reply-To: <20110122122018.GC5194@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20110121095658.1ab623fe@jbarnes-desktop> <1295632828.19880.22.camel@m0nster> <20110121100441.06a94482@jbarnes-desktop> <1295633882.19880.31.camel@m0nster> <1295642995.19880.42.camel@m0nster> <1295643762.25868.31.camel@Joe-Laptop> <1295645098.22882.1.camel@m0nster> <20110122122018.GC5194@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110122204129.GA8666@infradead.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:20:18PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > I've asked Daniel in private whether he'd mind posting the original > set of patches which he based his work on to this thread. > > I suspect that the situation is that there's many patches which he's > taken from the repository and consolidated them down into a nice set > of easy to review patches. > > One of the problems of preserving the micro-detail of history right > from the early inception of support for a platform is that quite often > the early support is buggy or broken - it might not even compile. There > may be 20 or so patches on top of that which eventually get it to a > usable state. > > Do we really want to put off people from reviewing patches because of > the size of micro-development that happened prior to getting to a point > where the result of that development is usable? No, not at all. And I'm really annoyed at all the pointless flaming here as people obviously never had to massage a completely messy repository into something submittable. That usually doesn't just include making useful commits, but also updates to current APIs, bug fixing, removing crap that should never make it's way upstream (and Android had quite a lot of the latter last time I looked). The only think that Daniel did wrong was to not attribute the original authors in the commit message, and not explaining his own contribution.