Hi Wolfgang,
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Simon Glass,
In message CAPnjgZ2P6sBDXiwXW2TeCdjADMhkN5iNBGrpZbtvwMqUtYVVxA@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Hi Tom,
This series includes the sandbox map_sysmem() feature, and gets the memory and hashing functions running on sandbox to allow testing/code coverage. I have run it through buildman and it seems clean, with the proviso that I don't have fully-working toolchains for all architectures.
NAK. It is not correct to push changes that affect global code through a arch-specific custodian tree, especially if the submitter of the patche(es) is identical to the custodian of the very tree, and even more so if there have been not ANY independent Acked-by: or at least Tested-by: messages.
This is NOT how the peer review process is supposed to work!!
Especially as a custodian you must not do such things.
OK, I was not quite sure what to do, so may have misunderstood Tom's instructions - there is a short thread here http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/153342
I have created a patchwork bundle instead.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/sjg/sandbox-mem/
Only one patch was Acked, so it could certainly use a few more eyes. However, it has been on the list for nearly two months, and I feel that applying things too close to the next release doesn't give people a lot of time to find problems.
Regards, Simon
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de Pray to God, but keep rowing to shore. - Russian Proverb