On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 01:32:58PM -0800, Simon Glass wrote:
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.
OK, I thought I said, but maybe I didn't, I'm OK with re-using the tree, but _not_ the master branch, u-boot-x86/sandbox would have been fine.