From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6450015460633083904 X-Received: by 10.25.149.17 with SMTP id x17mr154621lfd.33.1503415866345; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:31:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.28.41.132 with SMTP id p126ls629784wmp.21.gmail; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:31:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.28.178.197 with SMTP id b188mr61616wmf.22.1503415865791; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:31:05 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1503415865; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=F8H1Yl92Puzr0wO8p1VowEmtcKm0cD5r75S1fXamzyJzMu6Pm92qfgXR4JXtj54oUz MzyHWtB+s0ET5/r4PuFLjfbxhw/o3Ial4jFA/aApPjoix4ryekMho6pjnE6pLTOKkDN+ Y7S58CEOpkmWx7NhKMosL2fKsKoFTOY11Y4J0zrgdF+fdaT8v3VhvBG6OjSRS4LiqXoJ iPHNEmWwYu+jlgIfv4KfNGzoKE2xuUB//lcoDDAvkmKACG2rsyMsHw2W6syp3uhmr9W9 Uur3lGoA6xPseu+NN2D1/9BltWnXP5inJX6SZOaCKDROt97lwWGb2UUaY5Y5jwuW1H8a DNrg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:to:from:date :arc-authentication-results; bh=TYclmfgs+pZLZ9J8pUyKof24/PN531U/t1voT44B2p8=; b=m5PoknnoK9MEE06D8RW+X/2Ujot77H1gjB41PwZA4AbNAgUuh0Sl/A5DuM0oxThu4a HCnl2xtByn+kHV78OWi+5WwKMddiJj9y5LFWhDqqMvsRUVVkCozMV7AJvdqqHNEvcl+C /jqUEHydMXXaZOG59F4v9TKBor9DDqt5mWqpbRTM+dhom2ZI8oRqDwTihNKslnCktLwo Hp0XwxuovtgkSCOujIxdg9bsgREp1a3FLXkCflRqkR/KTUEpGZSY/X46sTO8GVBgltE7 v+vwR/cYkyvJVcRy636rNmK0MYWL1TiHLEiz91ELSog7zgyDVXVk1HNehkQIKahgRMUa mVFw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.62.211 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Return-Path: Received: from aqmola.ilbers.de (aqmola.ilbers.de. [85.214.62.211]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 74si646656wmf.8.2017.08.22.08.31.05 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.214.62.211 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) client-ip=85.214.62.211; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.62.211 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Received: from yssyq.radix50.net (p5B2DC9F8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.45.201.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by aqmola.ilbers.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id v7MFV3xn015294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:31:04 +0200 Received: from yssyq.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by yssyq.radix50.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8) with ESMTP id v7MFV3m3017496 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:31:03 +0200 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by yssyq.radix50.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id v7MFV2qD017495 for isar-users@googlegroups.com; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:31:02 +0200 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:31:02 +0200 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: isar-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0-10 of 16 v2 4/8] meta: conf: use bitbake.conf from bitbake and apply local changes Message-ID: <20170822153102.GG4244@yssyq.radix50.net> Mail-Followup-To: isar-users@googlegroups.com References: <20170821132539.GD8387@yssyq.radix50.net> <20170821202940.2f4b43c6@md1em3qc> <20170822113129.GF4244@yssyq.radix50.net> <20170822144528.37e1cf5e@md1em3qc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170822144528.37e1cf5e@md1em3qc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-TUID: Zqkq9BC664LO On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:45:28PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > We agreed that he would change my patches to save me the time to rebase > and change them. I asked him to add his signed-off to all patches he > actually modifies. > After that offer i did not hear back about remaining issues, so i > assumed they all got fixed on your side. And now "my commits" are the > cause for issues ... If you see the issue coming you should bring it up > in the review and not after applying the patch. > > I further assumed that any such patch would naturally be published for > review again, which did not happen or at least the comments where > ignored. Oh, please let me know whether I understand you correctly: You didn't like the way how I recently handled your patches, because you want to provide complete, high-quality code, and: 1. Issues related to a commit may lead to doubt regarding the commit quality. 2. You don't necessarily agree with my or Alex's changes. If this is the case, I agree that switching back to the classic workflow would be the best way to go. Still, let me comment on the points above. 1. I use issues as reminders to do something later without blocking code that has value, especially right now, when we process the patch backlog. E.g., I don't want to block isar-bitbake.conf till we enhance upstream bitbake. Similarly, the documentation should not be forgotten -- this is the only reason for that, apply and move forward. 2. Changing patches (sometimes substantially) before applying is common practice in e.g. Linux kernel. Again, we did that with the intention to speed up the process. I see that our attempt produced the opposite results. Now that we haven't processed all your patches, I'd suggest the following: * You rebase your changes on master and send them to the list. * We provide feedback and don't change your patches, even if it costs one or another round-trip. * If we all agree on a particular patch, it goes in, completely and verbatim. Could we proceed in this way, or do you have an alternative suggestion? With kind regards, Baurzhan.