On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 09:08:42AM +1200, Charles Manning wrote:

On Tuesday 24 April 2012 08:58:09 you wrote:

...

Dear Charles Manning,

In message 201204231346.32195.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz you wrote:

...

I recently sent a message to the list announcing a method for patching in the latest yaffs2.

u-boot updated with the latest yaffs2 can be pulled from git@github.com:cdhmanning/u-boot-yaffs2.git

Please read http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches and post proper patch(es) for review.

At least one of the files exceeds the 100k patch limit.

I know you'd like patches, but there are two really easy options for someone on the inside to do this:

1. Run the script off the yaffs git

-or- 2) Merge from the https://github.com/cdhmanning/u-boot-yaffs2

So this means things have gotten really far out of sync. Would you be willing to say that in the future you'll be submitting regular well formatted and broken down patches like I assume you do in the yaffs2 tree itself so we can avoid this in the future?

On 04/25/2012 03:28 PM, Charles Manning wrote:

On Thursday 26 April 2012 10:21:37 Tom Rini wrote:

...

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 09:08:42AM +1200, Charles Manning wrote:

...

On Tuesday 24 April 2012 08:58:09 you wrote:

...

Dear Charles Manning,

In message201204231346.32195.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz you wrote:

...

I recently sent a message to the list announcing a method for patching in the latest yaffs2.

u-boot updated with the latest yaffs2 can be pulled from git@github.com:cdhmanning/u-boot-yaffs2.git

Please read http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches and post proper patch(es) for review.

At least one of the files exceeds the 100k patch limit.

I know you'd like patches, but there are two really easy options for someone on the inside to do this:

1. Run the script off the yaffs git

-or- 2) Merge from the https://github.com/cdhmanning/u-boot-yaffs2

So this means things have gotten really far out of sync. Would you be willing to say that in the future you'll be submitting regular well formatted and broken down patches like I assume you do in the yaffs2 tree itself so we can avoid this in the future?

yaffs went through a large reformat a while ago meaning that the current code does not diff well against the old code. Future changes shuld be a lot easier to handle with direct patching.

yaffs changes typically don't go through the yaffs list since people with direct git checkin access do 95-99% of the changes.

Right, but a proper set of individual patches could be posted and reviewed in the future, yes?

Dear Charles Manning,

In message 201204261028.44543.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz you wrote:

yaffs went through a large reformat a while ago meaning that the current code does not diff well against the old code. Future changes shuld be a lot easier to handle with direct patching.

yaffs changes typically don't go through the yaffs list since people with direct git checkin access do 95-99% of the changes.

U-Boot has a different policy. Here nothing goes into mainline that has not been posted on the mailing list before. There are several reasons for this: 1) We want to make sure that the code has actually been visible and reviewed. When pulling from a git repo, you just get a drop of software in unknown condition. 2) We want to make sure the review process gets recorded - we use patchwork for this purpose.

So if you want to submit your code, then please post patches. There is no way around this step.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

Hi Charles,

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Charles Manning manningc2@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

On Friday 27 April 2012 00:25:55 Wolfgang Denk wrote:

...

Dear Charles Manning,

In message 201204261028.44543.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz you wrote:

...

yaffs went through a large reformat a while ago meaning that the current code does not diff well against the old code. Future changes shuld be a lot easier to handle with direct patching.

yaffs changes typically don't go through the yaffs  list since people with direct git checkin access do 95-99% of the changes.

U-Boot has a different policy.  Here nothing goes into mainline that has not been posted on the mailing list before.  There are several reasons for this:  1) We want to make sure that the code has actually been visible and reviewed.  When pulling from a git repo, you just get a drop of software in unknown condition.  2) We want to make sure the review process gets recorded - we use patchwork for this purpose.

So if you want to submit your code, then please post patches.  There is no way around this step.

I understand what you are trying to achieve but the reality is that nobody is going to read the patching of a whole file system.

If you supported patches greater than 100k this would be trivial to do, but I have a single file greater than that. Perhaps it is time to accept larger patches more consistent with the lkml and friends.

We do support patches > 100k - Just not directly via the mailing list. They get posted here:

http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/TooBigPatches

You will need to set yourself up on the U-Boot wiki to post your patches there

Regards,

Graeme

Dear Charles Manning,

In message 201204271059.46750.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz you wrote:

I understand what you are trying to achieve but the reality is that nobody is going to read the patching of a whole file system.

You may be wrong. In any case we will run them though thigs like checkpatch, and have them archived in patchworks.

If you supported patches greater than 100k this would be trivial to do, but I have a single file greater than that. Perhaps it is time to accept larger patches more consistent with the lkml and friends.

Larger patches are no problem. Yes, they will be moderated, but that's all. 100k is only the soft limit.

Viele Grüße,

Wolfgang Denk