In message 200806011802.41546.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
I expect that the entry in the pull request match the subject of some posting. Is this not the case? If so, why not?
i really have no idea what you're referring to
You wrote:
Mike Frysinger (14): Blackfin: make baud calculation more accurate Blackfin: fix up UART status bit handling Blackfin: fix up comment about CONFIG_BFIN_BOOT_MODE Blackfin: punt unused page_descriptor_table_size definition Blackfin: punt mem_init.h since it is no longer used Blackfin: update cpu header definitions from latest Blackfin toolchain Blackfin: punt unused BF533-STAMP definitions Blackfin: resurrect BF533-STAMP video splash driver Blackfin: touchup BF561-EZKIT board file Blackfin: set default boot SPI CS for BF538/BF539 Blackfin: kill conversion warnings in async nand driver Blackfin: tighten up post memory coding style Blackfin: overhaul i2c driver Blackfin: implement go/boote wrappers
I can find the subjects
overhaul i2c driver and implement go/boote wrappers
in my archive.
I cannot find any of the other subjects. For example, where is any posting that contained the string
fix up comment about CONFIG_BFIN_BOOT_MODE
?
i implemented his suggestions
You did not repost a cleaned up patch?
to "fix" whitespace ? no, i didnt
So how should anybody know if this is the old patch, or if you did any changes, and if so, which changes you did?
We don't want to pull unreviewed code.
So the status quo is that I rejected this patch. Why do you think you could it add to the repo?
you rejected based on a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the change
This is your opinion. Fact is, that I rejected it, and I did not revert this reject, and I do not revert it now.
Actually it is pretty foul game to try and make me pull in stuff which I explicitely rejected.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk