git-tree, NOW!
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Marc Kleine-Budde
maintainerHello,
On 10/06/2008 12:52 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
[...] something about git [...]
...yes, old thread, but I like the subject (still).
I think we need a git tree. It's the second time our humble network maintainer merged some patches to early. IMHO both times related to bad communication.......
I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s upstream.
Comments?
cheers, Marc
Signature · 4 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Hi Marc,
Quoted 10 lines · Marc Kleine-Budde
Hello,
On 10/06/2008 12:52 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
[...] something about git [...]...yes, old thread, but I like the subject (still).
I think we need a git tree. It's the second time our humble network maintainer merged some patches to early. IMHO both times related to bad communication.......
What do you mean? Usually we do not communicate anything to Dave for the normal v1->v2->v3->... review and patch update process (this does not excuse the bad quality of my last series). The problem is that it's not easy for him to follow our work and therefore we need our own GIT tree. That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone who acts as the one and only interface to him.
Quoted 9 lines
I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s upstream.
Comments?
Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
Wolfgang.
Quoted 8 lines
cheers, Marc
_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 8 lines · Wolfgang Grandegger
Quoted 3 lines
I think we need a git tree. It's the second time our humble network maintainer merged some patches to early. IMHO both times related to bad communication.......
What do you mean? Usually we do not communicate anything to Dave for the normal v1->v2->v3->... review and patch update process (this does not excuse the bad quality of my last series). The problem is that it's not easy for him to follow our work and therefore we need our own GIT tree.
Yes - exactly. I think we're meaning the same:
It's hard to figure out for him when a series is "ready", (or at least we think it is). We haven't communicated a "series is still in review" nor a "series is now ready".
I like Oliver's remark to first keep the discussion on the linux-can mailinglist and post the "final" series on netdev.
Quoted 2 lines
That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone who acts as the one and only interface to him.
Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 9 lines
I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s upstream.
Comments?
Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and linux-net-next trees.
Marc
Signature · 4 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 10 lines · Marc Kleine-Budde
Quoted 8 lines · Wolfgang Grandegger
Quoted 3 lines
I think we need a git tree. It's the second time our humble network maintainer merged some patches to early. IMHO both times related to bad communication.......
What do you mean? Usually we do not communicate anything to Dave for the normal v1->v2->v3->... review and patch update process (this does not excuse the bad quality of my last series). The problem is that it's not easy for him to follow our work and therefore we need our own GIT tree.
Quoted 4 lines
Yes - exactly. I think we're meaning the same:
It's hard to figure out for him when a series is "ready", (or at least we think it is). We haven't communicated a "series is still in review" nor a "series is now ready".
Yes. So far we just tried to signal "patch is now ready" by adding our "acked-by"... which does not work for a series of patches, espcially if it touches other sub-systems as well (powerpc, devicetree).
Quoted 2 lines
I like Oliver's remark to first keep the discussion on the linux-can mailinglist and post the "final" series on netdev.
Yes, don't ask me why I did not do that first, especially because some tested-by's would have be useful. I also learned that some more serious compile tests have to be done for different archs (x86, powerpc, arm, ...).
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone who acts as the one and only interface to him.
Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.
Oliver?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s upstream.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Comments?
Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and linux-net-next trees.
Do we need two trees? I thinks you can save a lot of bandwith (and disk space) by using just one tree and two branches.
Wolfgang.
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 1 line · Wolfgang Grandegger
On 12/01/2011 10:16 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
[...]
Quoted 3 lines
Yes. So far we just tried to signal "patch is now ready" by adding our "acked-by"... which does not work for a series of patches, espcially if it touches other sub-systems as well (powerpc, devicetree).
Yes - but David sometimes merges patches if they are not reviewed. Like the pch-can driver, where I missed to reply to net-dev.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I like Oliver's remark to first keep the discussion on the linux-can mailinglist and post the "final" series on netdev.
Yes, don't ask me why I did not do that first, especially because some tested-by's would have be useful. I also learned that some more serious compile tests have to be done for different archs (x86, powerpc, arm, ...).
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone who acts as the one and only interface to him.
Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.
Oliver?
+1
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 9 lines
I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s upstream.
Comments?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and linux-net-next trees.
Do we need two trees? I thinks you can save a lot of bandwith (and disk space) by using just one tree and two branches.
If you want to safe bandwith on your PC, you can $(git remote add) them into one tree.
Meanwhile there's a linux-can and a linux-can-next on gitorious. The latter one is still uploading.
Marc
Signature · 4 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
Quoted 10 lines · Marc Kleine-Budde
Quoted 1 line · Wolfgang Grandegger
On 12/01/2011 10:16 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
[...]
Quoted 3 lines
Yes. So far we just tried to signal "patch is now ready" by adding our "acked-by"... which does not work for a series of patches, espcially if it touches other sub-systems as well (powerpc, devicetree).
Yes - but David sometimes merges patches if they are not reviewed. Like the pch-can driver, where I missed to reply to net-dev.
IMO if someone begins to post a new CAN driver on netdev we should pull him to linux-can for further discussion & review. Indeed the PCH driver mainlining was painful and IIRC it could still be merged to an other driver.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I like Oliver's remark to first keep the discussion on the linux-can mailinglist and post the "final" series on netdev.
Yes, don't ask me why I did not do that first, especially because some tested-by's would have be useful. I also learned that some more serious compile tests have to be done for different archs (x86, powerpc, arm, ...).
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 2 lines
That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone who acts as the one and only interface to him.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.
Oliver?
+1
Well - i'm pretty happy that we splitted up the responsibilities some time ago and i'm currently only maintaining net/can. I'm working on this basically in my spare time and putting my eyes on all driver details too exceeds the WAF ;-)
Regarding net/can there's not much traffic & change. So it would be ok for me to stay on the current process on netdev-ML.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 9 lines
I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s upstream.
Comments?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and linux-net-next trees.
Do we need two trees? I thinks you can save a lot of bandwith (and disk space) by using just one tree and two branches.
As the net tree only get's fixes i wonder why we should clone that tree? Working directly on Dave's net-tree for fixes looks straight forward to me.
But the idea for a linux-can-next is great.
This would settle the process that we discuss new drivers & changes on linux-can ML and finally commit the stuff in linux-can-next, where one of us can send a pull request to Dave.
So everything beyond fixes would go this way then.
Regards,
Oliver
Marc Kleine-Budde
maintainerQuoted 9 lines · Oliver Hartkopp
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Yes. So far we just tried to signal "patch is now ready" by adding our "acked-by"... which does not work for a series of patches, espcially if it touches other sub-systems as well (powerpc, devicetree).
Yes - but David sometimes merges patches if they are not reviewed. Like the pch-can driver, where I missed to reply to net-dev.
IMO if someone begins to post a new CAN driver on netdev we should pull him to linux-can for further discussion & review. Indeed the PCH driver mainlining
+1
Quoted 1 line
was painful and IIRC it could still be merged to an other driver.
Yep, but that's a different story :)
[...]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone who acts as the one and only interface to him.
Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Oliver?
+1
Well - i'm pretty happy that we splitted up the responsibilities some time ago and i'm currently only maintaining net/can. I'm working on this basically in my spare time and putting my eyes on all driver details too exceeds the WAF ;-)
No need to look at the driver stuff.... (continuation below)
Quoted 19 lines
Regarding net/can there's not much traffic & change. So it would be ok for me to stay on the current process on netdev-ML.
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 9 lines
I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s upstream.
Comments?
Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and linux-net-next trees.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Do we need two trees? I thinks you can save a lot of bandwith (and disk space) by using just one tree and two branches.
As the net tree only get's fixes i wonder why we should clone that tree? Working directly on Dave's net-tree for fixes looks straight forward to me.
Thinking about it - yes, what about just keeping linux-can-next.
Quoted 5 lines
But the idea for a linux-can-next is great.
This would settle the process that we discuss new drivers & changes on linux-can ML and finally commit the stuff in linux-can-next, where one of us can send a pull request to Dave.
...you send the pull request.
Quoted 1 line
So everything beyond fixes would go this way then.
+1
So we communicate to davem that we now have a git tree, and Oliver is the one that send the pull requests. Let's ask him if he wants to see the patches in the pull request.
Marc
Signature · 4 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
RFC PATCH 1/1 CAN MAINTAINERS
Quoted 16 lines · Marc Kleine-Budde
Quoted 2 lines · Oliver Hartkopp
As the net tree only get's fixes i wonder why we should clone that tree? Working directly on Dave's net-tree for fixes looks straight forward to me.
Thinking about it - yes, what about just keeping linux-can-next.
Quoted 5 lines
But the idea for a linux-can-next is great.
This would settle the process that we discuss new drivers & changes on linux-can ML and finally commit the stuff in linux-can-next, where one of us can send a pull request to Dave.
...you send the pull request.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
So everything beyond fixes would go this way then.
+1
So we communicate to davem that we now have a git tree, and Oliver is the one that send the pull requests. Let's ask him if he wants to see the patches in the pull request.
Hey Marc,
i'm not as good as you using git. Indeed i'm a git newbie and do not have the time right now to get in that deep that i dare to post correct pull requests to netdev.
Following the hints from Dave i checked the MAINTAINERS file how the wireless guys handle their subsystem in detail. Regarding John Linville, who's collecting all the stuff from several people to send finally push requests to Dave i would suggest that you become our 'John Linville for CAN'.
You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:
MAINTAINERS +13 -6
@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h CAN NETWORK LAYER M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Urs Thuermann <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: net/can/ F: include/linux/can.h
@@ -1723,8 +1720,7 @@ F: include/linux/can/gw.h CAN NETWORK DRIVERS M: Wolfgang Grandegger <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: drivers/net/can/ F: include/linux/can/dev.h
@@ -4587,6 +4583,17 @@ F: include/linux/wireless.h F: include/net/iw_handler.h F: drivers/net/wireless/ +NETWORKING [CAN] +M: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]> +L: [email protected] +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can +T: git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can.git +T: git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can-next.git +S: Maintained +F: net/can/ +F: drivers/net/can/ +F: include/linux/can* + NETWORKING DRIVERS L: [email protected] W: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net
Regards,
Oliver
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS
Quoted 10 lines · Oliver Hartkopp
Hey Marc,
i'm not as good as you using git. Indeed i'm a git newbie and do not have the time right now to get in that deep that i dare to post correct pull requests to netdev.
Following the hints from Dave i checked the
MAINTAINERSfile how the wireless guys handle their subsystem in detail. Regarding John Linville, who's collecting all the stuff from several people to send finally push requests to Dave i would suggest that you become our 'John Linville for CAN'.
Wolfgang and me talked about this (via PM), too. We do the job together, but I send the pull requests to Dave.
Quoted 2 lines
You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:
The cleanups look got, however, do we need the linux-can tree. Do the wireless people have two trees?
MAINTAINERS F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h · line 1713
Quoted 12 lines
MAINTAINERS +0
-3@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h CAN NETWORK LAYER M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Urs Thuermann <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected]
this should focus the discussion on linux-can
MAINTAINERS F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h · line 1711
Quoted 2 lines
MAINTAINERS +1
-1-W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can
the can utils are now migrated (im my repo still)
Quoted 14 lines
MAINTAINERS +1
-2S: Maintained F: net/can/ F: include/linux/can.h@@ -1723,8 +1720,7 @@ F: include/linux/can/gw.h CAN NETWORK DRIVERS M: Wolfgang Grandegger <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: drivers/net/can/ F: include/linux/can/dev.h
MAINTAINERS F: include/linux/wireless.h · line 4590
Quoted 8 lines
MAINTAINERS +5
-0@@ -4587,6 +4583,17 @@ F: include/linux/wireless.h F: include/net/iw_handler.h F: drivers/net/wireless/ +NETWORKING [CAN] +M: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]> +L: [email protected] +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can +T: git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can.git
do we need this tree?
MAINTAINERS F: include/linux/wireless.h · line 4599
Quoted 9 lines
MAINTAINERS +6
-0+T: git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can-next.git +S: Maintained +F: net/can/ +F: drivers/net/can/ +F: include/linux/can* + NETWORKING DRIVERS L: [email protected] W: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net
Marc
Signature · 4 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS
Hi Marc,
Quoted 7 lines · Marc Kleine-Budde
Quoted 6 lines · Oliver Hartkopp
Hey Marc,
i'm not as good as you using git. Indeed i'm a git newbie and do not have the time right now to get in that deep that i dare to post correct pull requests to netdev.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Following the hints from Dave i checked the
MAINTAINERSfile how the wireless guys handle their subsystem in detail. Regarding John Linville, who's collecting all the stuff from several people to send finally push requests to Dave i would suggest that you become our 'John Linville for CAN'.Wolfgang and me talked about this (via PM), too. We do the job together, but I send the pull requests to Dave.
Thanks!
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:
The cleanups look got, however, do we need the linux-can tree. Do the wireless people have two trees?
I would drop it for the time being.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
MAINTAINERS +0
-0@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h
Quoted 8 lines
MAINTAINERS F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h · line 1713
Quoted 6 lines
MAINTAINERS +0
-3CAN NETWORK LAYER M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Urs Thuermann <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected]this should focus the discussion on linux-can
Well, but I think the patches still need to be presented on the netdev ml? We should clarify that.
Quoted 22 lines
MAINTAINERS F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h · line 1711
Quoted 2 lines
MAINTAINERS +1
-1-W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-canthe can utils are now migrated (im my repo still)
Quoted 17 lines
MAINTAINERS +1
-2S: Maintained F: net/can/ F: include/linux/can.h@@ -1723,8 +1720,7 @@ F: include/linux/can/gw.h CAN NETWORK DRIVERS M: Wolfgang Grandegger <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: drivers/net/can/ F: include/linux/can/dev.h@@ -4587,6 +4583,17 @@ F: include/linux/wireless.h F: include/net/iw_handler.h F: drivers/net/wireless/
Quoted 7 lines
MAINTAINERS F: include/linux/wireless.h · line 4590
Quoted 5 lines
MAINTAINERS +5
-0+NETWORKING [CAN] +M: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]> +L: [email protected] +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can +T: git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can.gitdo we need this tree?
I don't think so. You should be added to the CAN NETWORK DRIVERS entry above.
Wolfgang.
Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS
Quoted 15 lines · Wolfgang Grandegger
Hi Marc,
Quoted 12 lines · Marc Kleine-Budde
Quoted 10 lines · Oliver Hartkopp
Hey Marc,
i'm not as good as you using git. Indeed i'm a git newbie and do not have the time right now to get in that deep that i dare to post correct pull requests to netdev.
Following the hints from Dave i checked the
MAINTAINERSfile how the wireless guys handle their subsystem in detail. Regarding John Linville, who's collecting all the stuff from several people to send finally push requests to Dave i would suggest that you become our 'John Linville for CAN'.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Wolfgang and me talked about this (via PM), too. We do the job together, but I send the pull requests to Dave.
Thanks!
Many thanks!
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:
The cleanups look got, however, do we need the linux-can tree. Do the wireless people have two trees?
I would drop it for the time being.
Ok. So we stick to use Daves net-tree for fixes and send patches for the net-tree the old way, right?
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
MAINTAINERS +0
-0@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.hQuoted 8 lines
MAINTAINERS F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h · line 1713
Quoted 6 lines
MAINTAINERS +0
-3CAN NETWORK LAYER M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Urs Thuermann <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected]this should focus the discussion on linux-can
Quoted 2 lines
Well, but I think the patches still need to be presented on the netdev ml? We should clarify that.
I already thought about that too.
I think for CAN drivers there's no need for extra discussions on netdev. But for net/can changes i would always post the patches on linux-can and netdev to get the networking guys like Eric and Patrick into the loop for a review.
Btw. we should ask if Dave would like the stuff from our linux-can-next only as pull request or additionally in full source code.
Just to make it sure: When there are new ideas in net/can i would only post RFCs on netdev & linux-can. And once there is no new feedback - what would be the correct way:
- send it on netdev and then acked-by Marc
- send it on linux-can, push it into linux-can-next, and send a pull request?
???
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
MAINTAINERS F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h · line 1711
Quoted 4 lines
MAINTAINERS +1
-1-W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-canthe can utils are now migrated (im my repo still)
fine.
Quoted 26 lines
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 18 lines
MAINTAINERS +1
-2S: Maintained F: net/can/ F: include/linux/can.h@@ -1723,8 +1720,7 @@ F: include/linux/can/gw.h CAN NETWORK DRIVERS M: Wolfgang Grandegger <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: drivers/net/can/ F: include/linux/can/dev.h@@ -4587,6 +4583,17 @@ F: include/linux/wireless.h F: include/net/iw_handler.h F: drivers/net/wireless/Quoted 7 lines
MAINTAINERS F: include/linux/wireless.h · line 4590
Quoted 5 lines
MAINTAINERS +5
-0+NETWORKING [CAN] +M: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]> +L: [email protected] +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can +T: git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can.gitdo we need this tree?
Quoted 2 lines
I don't think so. You should be added to the CAN NETWORK DRIVERS entry above.
Here is an update:
MAINTAINERS +13 -6
@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h CAN NETWORK LAYER M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Urs Thuermann <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: net/can/ F: include/linux/can.h
@@ -1722,9 +1719,9 @@ F: include/linux/can/gw.h CAN NETWORK DRIVERS M: Wolfgang Grandegger <[email protected]> +M: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: drivers/net/can/ F: include/linux/can/dev.h
@@ -4587,6 +4584,16 @@ F: include/linux/wireless.h F: include/net/iw_handler.h F: drivers/net/wireless/ +NETWORKING [CAN] +M: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]> +L: [email protected] +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can +T: git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can-next.git +S: Maintained +F: net/can/ +F: drivers/net/can/ +F: include/linux/can* + NETWORKING DRIVERS L: [email protected] W: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net
Regards,
Oliver
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS
Hi Oliver,
Quoted 29 lines · Oliver Hartkopp
Quoted 15 lines · Wolfgang Grandegger
Hi Marc,
Quoted 12 lines · Marc Kleine-Budde
Quoted 10 lines · Oliver Hartkopp
Hey Marc,
i'm not as good as you using git. Indeed i'm a git newbie and do not have the time right now to get in that deep that i dare to post correct pull requests to netdev.
Following the hints from Dave i checked the
MAINTAINERSfile how the wireless guys handle their subsystem in detail. Regarding John Linville, who's collecting all the stuff from several people to send finally push requests to Dave i would suggest that you become our 'John Linville for CAN'.Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Wolfgang and me talked about this (via PM), too. We do the job together, but I send the pull requests to Dave.
Thanks!
Many thanks!
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The cleanups look got, however, do we need the linux-can tree. Do the wireless people have two trees?
I would drop it for the time being.
Ok. So we stick to use Daves net-tree for fixes and send patches for the net-tree the old way, right?
Don't now what Dave's preference is.
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
MAINTAINERS +0
-0@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.hQuoted 8 lines
MAINTAINERS F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h · line 1713
Quoted 6 lines
MAINTAINERS +0
-3CAN NETWORK LAYER M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Urs Thuermann <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected]this should focus the discussion on linux-can
Quoted 2 lines
Well, but I think the patches still need to be presented on the netdev ml? We should clarify that.
I already thought about that too.
Quoted 7 lines
I think for CAN drivers there's no need for extra discussions on netdev. But for net/can changes i would always post the patches on linux-can and netdev to get the networking guys like Eric and Patrick into the loop for a review.
Btw. we should ask if Dave would like the stuff from our linux-can-next only as pull request or additionally in full source code.
As the patch goes through Dave's tree, I think the patch *must* be posted on the netdev ML.
Quoted 5 lines
Just to make it sure: When there are new ideas in net/can i would only post RFCs on netdev & linux-can. And once there is no new feedback - what would be the correct way:
- send it on netdev and then acked-by Marc
Either you, Marc or myself will pick it up and push it onto the linux-can-next tree. We will need to add a "signed-off-by" then!!! I does make sense to have a separate branch for development where we can push our changes to and then Marc merges them to the "to-net-next" branch. Note also that we need to rebase our patches regularly (re-sync with net-next), especially before sending the pull request. But Marc knows better...
Quoted 1 line
- send it on linux-can, push it into linux-can-next, and send a pull request?
Well, we still need to define the procedure. We could also use the patchwork infrastructure to handle the patches.
...
Quoted 35 lines
Here is an update:
MAINTAINERS +3
-6@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h CAN NETWORK LAYER M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Urs Thuermann <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: net/can/ F: include/linux/can.h@@ -1722,9 +1719,9 @@ F: include/linux/can/gw.h CAN NETWORK DRIVERS M: Wolfgang Grandegger <[email protected]> +M: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: drivers/net/can/ F: include/linux/can/dev.h@@ -4587,6 +4584,16 @@ F: include/linux/wireless.h F: include/net/iw_handler.h F: drivers/net/wireless/
MAINTAINERS F: include/linux/wireless.h · line 4596
Quoted 10 lines
MAINTAINERS +10
-0+NETWORKING [CAN] +M: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]> +L: [email protected] +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can +T: git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can-next.git +S: Maintained +F: net/can/ +F: drivers/net/can/ +F: include/linux/can* +
Please drop the entry above and move the "T" line to the CAN NETWORK DRIVERS and PROTOCOL entries. can/net changes have also go through the git repository.
Wolfgang.
Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS
Quoted 4 lines · Wolfgang Grandegger
Quoted 2 lines
Ok. So we stick to use Daves net-tree for fixes and send patches for the net-tree the old way, right?
Don't now what Dave's preference is.
If we present fixes to the net-tree via pull request, we would need a linux-can.git again to pull from ...
Quoted 27 lines
Quoted 27 lines
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
MAINTAINERS +0
-0@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.hQuoted 8 lines
MAINTAINERS F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h · line 1713
Quoted 6 lines
MAINTAINERS +0
-3CAN NETWORK LAYER M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Urs Thuermann <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected]this should focus the discussion on linux-can
Quoted 2 lines
Well, but I think the patches still need to be presented on the netdev ml? We should clarify that.
I already thought about that too.
I think for CAN drivers there's no need for extra discussions on netdev. But for net/can changes i would always post the patches on linux-can and netdev to get the networking guys like Eric and Patrick into the loop for a review.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Btw. we should ask if Dave would like the stuff from our linux-can-next only as pull request or additionally in full source code.
As the patch goes through Dave's tree, I think the patch *must* be posted on the netdev ML.
Looking to the wireless guys:
net Fixes are sent with source.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/128561/
net-next Pull requests are sent without source.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/128071/
But i don't think we would have that much changes, that sending the source becomes annoying. So you are right: We should send our pull requests with src.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Just to make it sure: When there are new ideas in net/can i would only post RFCs on netdev & linux-can. And once there is no new feedback - what would be the correct way:
- send it on netdev and then acked-by Marc
Either you, Marc or myself will pick it up and push it onto the linux-can-next tree. We will need to add a "signed-off-by" then!!!
ok.
Quoted 3 lines
I does make sense to have a separate branch for development where we can push our changes to and then Marc merges them to the "to-net-next" branch.
ok.
Quoted 46 lines
Note also that we need to rebase our patches regularly (re-sync with net-next), especially before sending the pull request. But Marc knows better...
Quoted 1 line
- send it on linux-can, push it into linux-can-next, and send a pull request?
Well, we still need to define the procedure. We could also use the patchwork infrastructure to handle the patches.
...
Quoted 35 lines
Here is an update:
MAINTAINERS +3
-6@@ -1707,11 +1707,8 @@ F: arch/x86/include/asm/tce.h CAN NETWORK LAYER M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Oliver Hartkopp <[email protected]> -M: Urs Thuermann <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: net/can/ F: include/linux/can.h@@ -1722,9 +1719,9 @@ F: include/linux/can/gw.h CAN NETWORK DRIVERS M: Wolfgang Grandegger <[email protected]> +M: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]> L: [email protected] -L: [email protected] -W: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/socketcan/ +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can S: Maintained F: drivers/net/can/ F: include/linux/can/dev.h@@ -4587,6 +4584,16 @@ F: include/linux/wireless.h F: include/net/iw_handler.h F: drivers/net/wireless/
Quoted 14 lines
MAINTAINERS F: include/linux/wireless.h · line 4596
Quoted 10 lines
MAINTAINERS +10
-0+NETWORKING [CAN] +M: Marc Kleine-Budde <[email protected]> +L: [email protected] +W: http://gitorious.org/linux-can +T: git://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can-next.git +S: Maintained +F: net/can/ +F: drivers/net/can/ +F: include/linux/can* +Please drop the entry above and move the "T" line to the CAN NETWORK DRIVERS and PROTOCOL entries. can/net changes have also go through the git repository.
Ok. To add the "T" lines to the above entries is fine to me.
But the last entry was the idea to document to Dave who's his interfacing person. IMO that's important for him to know.
Regards,
Oliver
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Re: [RFC PATCH] CAN MAINTAINERS
Quoted 7 lines · Wolfgang Grandegger
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
You speak git fluently and you know the project very good - so my suggestion to clean up the MAINTAINTERS file is this:
The cleanups look got, however, do we need the linux-can tree. Do the wireless people have two trees?
I would drop it for the time being.
The wireless people have two trees:git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless.gitgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-next.git
Marc
Signature · 4 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core