Re: [linux-i2c] Patch notification: DaVinci: 2 patches updated

Re: [linux-i2c] Patch notification: DaVinci: 2 patches updated

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 175 bytes --]


> May I know which changes superseded my update suggestions (from 2018-02-02) here?

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/patch/20230515175042.495377-2-afd@ti.com/


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [linux-i2c] Patch notification: DaVinci: 2 patches updated

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 347 bytes --]


> I find it interesting somehow that you found a contribution by Andrew Davis (from 2023-05-15)
> more appropriate.

It got reviewed from someone else. Patches which get a review from
someone else get a priority boost. But don't be sad, because of this
patch, I noticed all your other (unreviewed!) patches and applied them.
That's good, right?


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [linux-i2c] Patch notification: DaVinci: 2 patches updated

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 510 bytes --]


> Unfortunately, it seems that the patch quality was still improvable.

It was not perfect but good enough.

> * How will the patch integration evolve further for suggestions which seem to be
>   still in waiting queues?

Easy, it will evolve quite similar with the amount of review/reviewers.

> * How far back would you like to support the known development history
>   for discussed Linux software components?

Dunno, if I got the question right, but I don't want to break existing
stuff. Why do you ask?


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [linux-i2c] Patch notification: DaVinci: 2 patches updated

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 316 bytes --]


> If I look at patches which I contributed for the software area “I2C”,
> I got the impression that further constructive feedback will be helpful also for
> six change possibilities from days like the following.

Yes, you are right. these patches need feedback. This is why I haven't
applied them yet.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]