On 12/08/2024 14:21, Wolfram Sang wrote:

quoted

Yep, but to be fair the patchset did not say anything about
dependencies. There is absolutely nothing in cover letter, nothing in
the patches, so I do not wonder that this mishap happened.

Still, one shouldn't take DT patches (which are even the last ones in
this series) until all other patches are at least in -next, or? Yes,
mistakes happen, so no big deal, but i2c is not to blame IMHO.

No, it's not. It was just a ping. The issue is here not describing
dependency, allowing Guenter to take the patch and not even telling him
that now next has warning. :/ It's like entire weight is on maintainers
and contributors care only about getting their patch inside. Once it is
inside, not my problem anymore... :(

quoted

Depends whether you rely on being CC-ed here. Existing entries do not

I don't rely on CC. I rely on patches being on the i2c list.

quoted

include you, thus you are not cc-ed on maintainers. Peter Rosin is, but
it seems Peter does not apply patches. It could be intentional, but then
I understand that all pings should go to Peter?

Once Peter acks, I apply. He is the maintainer. Yet, he is very busy, so
I also apply when someone else I trust does a review. He is fine with

Sure, that explains, so ping should not really go to you...

that and might chime in later, if needed. This patch here did not get
any review, sadly. As I said, resource problem. That being said, these
patches are somewhere on my todo list if nobody else steps up (what I
would prefer). But please, don't put pressure on me (or any other
potential reviewer) just because DT patches ended up upstream too early.

Best regards,
Krzysztof