On 10 February 2015 at 11:17, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Florian Fainelli [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Le 24/01/2015 22:22, Florian Fainelli a ?crit :

quoted

Le 23/01/2015 14:01, Olof Johansson a ?crit :

quoted

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:33:59PM +0100, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:

quoted

Hi Olof, Hi Arnd,

This is a pull request with some dt updates for BCM5301X for 3.20.

The following changes since commit 97bf6af1f928216fd6c5a66e8a57bfa95a659672:

  Linux 3.19-rc1 (2014-12-20 17:08:50 -0800)

are available in the git repository at:

  https://github.com/hauke/linux.git tags/bcm5301x-dt-2015-01-20

for you to fetch changes up to 5b1864b899d2b591402704dd0f6528c8661f1817:

  ARM: BCM5301X: Add DT for Buffalo WZR-900DHP (2015-01-20 23:23:25 +0100)

Hi Hauke,

I've merged this into next/dt now, comments below.

quoted

----------------------------------------------------------------
bcm5301x-dt-2015-01-20: ARM: BCM5301X: dts updates for 3.20

Signed-off-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>

No signed-off-by needed in the tag -- the fact that you have signed it is
enough. We do ask for a few words about what's in the branch though more than
"dts updates". Something to think about going forward.

Also:

We had asked that broadcom platforms go in together through Florian from
here on out, so we don't have to deal with merge requests from each and
every one of you since there are several subplatforms. Would that be ok
with you?

Humm, I had asked you and Arnd a couple times if you would actually
agree in us (bcm5301x, cygnus, brcmstb and others) doing separate pull
requests, the rationale being that:

- the previous mach-bcm maintainers had been holding some of our
development because of their lack of responsiveness, so we did not want
to end-up creating the same (potential) situation here with centralized
pull requests

- there is little to no code sharing happening within mach-bcm, so you
would typically only have to merge the Makefile and Kconfig portions

That said, I still have no problems sending grouped pull requests if you
prefer this model (that is sending all broadcom related pull requests
through one maintainer).

I will get all the Broadcom changes routed through a single pull request
model, let me know if you want that to change in the future.

Sorry, forgot to reply earlier.

I think that would be preferred by us, yes.

Even though there's little code sharing, there's still the need to
train new maintainers on what we prefer and not, which we'd then push
one level further in the maintainer graph for better scaling. :)

Florian: will you handle these pull requests then? Can you share some
git tree we can track?

-- 
Rafa?