[meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-arm-extra][PATCH v2 6/8] u-boot-imx: Remove Wandboard patch as it is not supported by mainline

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> wrote:
> Le Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:13:48 -0300,
> Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> wrote:
>> > Le Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:48:31 -0300,
>> > Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>> >> You are welcome to review the patches and test; I just cannot keep
>> >> holding patches for so long as it is a nightmare to manage a huge
>> >> queue of patches. Specially when they are tested and need more wider
>> >> test.
>> >
>> > less then 24 hours between sending the match on the ML and comitting
>> > them doesn't allow any serious testing by the ML readers.
>>
>> Agreed. It was indeed less than 24 hours.
>>
>> Next time I will give 48 hours for huge or complex patchsets; I just
>
> 48h is very short for people to test such big changes especially for
> those who have other occupations than meta-fsl-arm.

The biggest problem here is we may have a bottleneck of queued
patches; one exemple was the GPU patches that were worked for very
long time until we found a good and working solution but it was a
nightmare for me to keep all the versions working and testing with and
without it.

A huge queue of patches also makes the handle of all this harder for
as you're not the only one which work in other things than
meta-fsl-arm.

> Most versions of software in meta-fsl-* don't change very fast so
> allowing something like a week for peoples to test doesn't seems a big
> issue.


>> don't see a reason to wait 24 hours for trivial bug fixes however I
>> agree a U-Boot change needs more time and will follow this rule next
>> time.
>>
>
> because even a trivial bugfix can contain an error or someone else may
> have ideas for a better fix so review is important unless.

It depends on many things and we can also change it again in another
patch for fixing it better.

So I think we shouldn't hold for too long as it makes life harder for
people merging and testing these stuff.

> And in the present case, you default many boards to a bootloader
> version which is not a stable one which IMHO is a not a good thing.

The U-Boot will be released very soon and it will be the stable branch.

Regards,

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio at ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br