Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1494821 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-10-03 13:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-10-04 16:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-10-05 02:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-10-05 10:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-10-05 11:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-10-05 11:10 +0200

#1494821 — Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] mfd: wm8994-core: don't split lines unnecessarily

On 16-09-16, 08:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> These can fit in a single line (80 columns), don't split lines
> unnecessarily.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> ---
> V1->V2: New patch
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/wm8994-core.c | 6 ++----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Ping!!

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1495450

On Mon, 03 Oct 2016, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> On 16-09-16, 08:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > These can fit in a single line (80 columns), don't split lines
> > unnecessarily.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > 
> > ---
> > V1->V2: New patch
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/wm8994-core.c | 6 ++----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> Ping!!

Don't do that!

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1495647

On 04-10-16, 15:41, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2016, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 
> > On 16-09-16, 08:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > These can fit in a single line (80 columns), don't split lines
> > > unnecessarily.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > V1->V2: New patch
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/wm8994-core.c | 6 ++----
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Ping!!
> 
> Don't do that!

Okay, but what's exactly wrong with that? Its been 20 days that I have
heard anything from you on this. Pinging the maintainers is the only
option other people have, right?

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1495761

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> On 04-10-16, 15:41, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Oct 2016, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > 
> > > On 16-09-16, 08:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > These can fit in a single line (80 columns), don't split lines
> > > > unnecessarily.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > V1->V2: New patch
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/mfd/wm8994-core.c | 6 ++----
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Ping!!
> > 
> > Don't do that!
> 
> Okay, but what's exactly wrong with that? Its been 20 days that I have
> heard anything from you on this. Pinging the maintainers is the only
> option other people have, right?

You are experienced enough to know better than this.

a) Contentless pings have never been acceptable.  If you genuinely
think a patch has been forgotten you should resubmit with a
[RESEND]. That is their entire purpose.

b) You submitted this patch right at the end of the release cycle, and
your ping was sent during the merge-window.  Most Maintainers, myself
included, like to have patches soak tested in -next for at least a
couple of weeks prior to acceptance.

c) The merge-window is open.  We are likely conducting final tests and
formatting pull-requests during this time.  As an experienced
submitter, I would have expected you to follow the release cycle and
know that sending patches late is cause for delay.

d) Maintainers take vacations and attend conferences, so some delays
are to be expected.

FYI: Your patch has not slipped through the net.  It is in the pile to
be reviewed.  Please be more patient, especially around merge time.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1495763

On 05-10-16, 09:49, Lee Jones wrote:
> You are experienced enough to know better than this.

:)

> a) Contentless pings have never been acceptable.  If you genuinely
> think a patch has been forgotten you should resubmit with a
> [RESEND]. That is their entire purpose.

Sure, but I really believe a light *ping* is much better than a complete resend
to start with. It generates far less noise.

> b) You submitted this patch right at the end of the release cycle, and
> your ping was sent during the merge-window.  Most Maintainers, myself
> included, like to have patches soak tested in -next for at least a
> couple of weeks prior to acceptance.

I agree to that, I sent it after rc6. I wasn't looking to get this merged during
this cycle, but was wondering if it got missed or something like that.

I still don't think that a simple Ping was that bad of an option, but its fine.
Take your time to review this, no issues.

Cheers.

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1495768

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 05-10-16, 09:49, Lee Jones wrote:
> > You are experienced enough to know better than this.
> 
> :)
> 
> > a) Contentless pings have never been acceptable.  If you genuinely
> > think a patch has been forgotten you should resubmit with a
> > [RESEND]. That is their entire purpose.
> 
> Sure, but I really believe a light *ping* is much better than a complete resend
> to start with. It generates far less noise.

Contentless pings are generally not accepted.

It also has the unfortunate side-effect of placing your patches at the
top of the pile, and since I process patches in reverse chronological
order, you just put yourself at the back of the list. ;)

--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web