Hi Otavio,
On 28 July 2015 at 12:06, Otavio Salvador otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
On 28 July 2015 at 11:54, Otavio Salvador otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
On 28 July 2015 at 11:45, Otavio Salvador otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
On 23 July 2015 at 03:36, Chris Packham judge.packham@gmail.com wrote: > It could be treated the same way the git project treats gitk and > git-gui. The sources are still included in the main project and > distributed along with the rest of it but they are merged from an > external upstream where the real development happens. The upstream > project is also free to make releases on whatever schedule they > determine (although these days there isn't much development going on > in for gitk/git-gui).
That sounds like a useful model. However there are so few patches to patman - is it worth it?
Sure it is; I have asked it in past I think.
I would like to have it in Debian, Arch and other linux distros and get more people using it to manage patch series. It is hard to explain it can be used for other project it being inside U-Boot source code.
OK so if we do this, what's the best way to get a repo and a mailing list?
I would try github or kernel.org if possible.
I can't see mailing lists in github.
Sure but it has issues and pull requests. Likely what we need.
I've sent a request to kernel.org, and copied you.
Great :-)
It doesn't look like Greg is keen. I'll take a look at github.
Regards, Simon