Thread (18 messages) 18 messages, 3 authors, 2014-02-19

[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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help