Re: Cleanups in "next" tree

Re: Cleanups in "next" tree

[Dan Murphy]

Pavel

On 4/2/20 5:57 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2020-03-22 14:35:56, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>> Hi Pavel,
>>
>> On 3/22/20 12:59 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I've commited some cleanups into LED tree ( git/pavel/linux-leds.git
>>> branch for-next ), if someone wants to review them.
>> You abused your maintainer power by bypassing the usual patch
>> submission procedure. Please remove the patches from linux-next
>> and submit them officially for discussion. I would have some objections
>> to them.
> I'm sorry I failed to meet your high expectations... But I don't
> believe I done anything completely outside of usual kernel procedures.

So I can push a public tree out and request reviewers to review that 
tree and expect it to get merged once the review is complete without 
ever posting the patches to linux-leds?

This would be the precedent you are setting here as maintainer.

And Jacek does not have high expectations he is just requesting that we 
follow the process as defined in the Linux kernel document

Dan

Re: Cleanups in "next" tree

[Dan Murphy]

Pavel

On 4/3/20 1:45 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> On 4/3/20 12:57 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> On Sun 2020-03-22 14:35:56, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> On 3/22/20 12:59 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> I've commited some cleanups into LED tree ( git/pavel/linux-leds.git
>>>> branch for-next ), if someone wants to review them.
>>> You abused your maintainer power by bypassing the usual patch
>>> submission procedure. Please remove the patches from linux-next
>>> and submit them officially for discussion. I would have some objections
>>> to them.
>> I'm sorry I failed to meet your high expectations... But I don't
>> believe I done anything completely outside of usual kernel procedures.
> I believe code review is quite usual kernel procedure.
>
>> Could you list the patches and objections you have?
> I already expressed my concerns regarding Turris Omnia patch.
>
> My comments regarding remaining patches:
>
> - "Make label "white:power" to be consistent with"
>
> I disagree here. "system" was OK.
>
> - "Warn about old defines that probably should not be used."
>
> Obsolete is only LED_FULL, so the comment is in wrong line

I would prefer to have the commit sha that obsoleted the LED_FULL to be 
referenced in the commit message so we have traceability.

Dan