[PATCH 3/3] ahci: st: Add support for ST's SATA IP
From: Lee Jones <hidden>
Date: 2014-02-19 17:24:52
Also in:
linux-ide, lkml
quoted
Again, that's not what I said. It's great that your subsystem is being improved, but insisting that anyone who submits new code to rebase on top of some development patches which only exist in mail form, and refusing to take patches until they do so doesn't seem right to me.No policy is perfect and nothing can be decided solely on single policy. There of course are trade-offs to make depending on the specific circumstances. The problem, here, is that what has been going on is skewed towards one extreme and has potential to develop into a fairly large mess if left uncorrected. The message I've been sending out has been pretty clear. There are multiple people duplicating about the same thing in their drivers. Fortunately, Hans' refactoring is pretty close to completion and should help simplifying most of them. I'm not even asking you to do the bulk of work. Just take a look at it and help / push if you can. It may be unfortunate that the circumstances haven't been completely aligned for your convenience but that's what needs to be done to keep things sustainable.
I understand this. Thanks for taking the time to explain properly. FWIW, I have now managed to rebase the driver on top of Hans' work and I am now in the process of converting it to the new way of working.
This is a collaborative work and what I asked you isn't some insurmountable amount of extra work. It's just beyond me that your response is "it's not fair". No wonder the whole thing has been drifting towards mess. That's not how this works. Judging from your linaro address, I assume you have been involved with some upstream work, how can this possibly be your response? Such attitude is actively harmful and has no place in upstream development. Again, of course, there can be trade-offs. We sometimes do need to take termporal hits in maintainability for faster hardware enablement or whatnot; however, we can't do that without trust that the people dumping stuff which needs later cleanups would actually help. Unfortnately, I have close to zero trust given the recent developments and your "it's not fair, that's not my responsibility" attitude clearly confirms the conclusion. So, please take long look at how you perceive upstream development. It's a collaborative process. Other people don't owe you by default.
Please refrain from adding quotation marks around things I didn't actually say. I didn't say that this whole process was unfair. I was pertaining to the fact that requesting that a driver is converted to a non-existing API was wrong. As it currently stands the driver uses the correct one. I also said that I'd happily convert it over when the clean-ups are actually applied. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog