On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 13:42 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 11/23/16 12:56 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > "Have all patches applied to BitBake and OpenEmbedded-Core (if present) > > been submitted to the open source community?" > > > > Shouldn't the wording be change to something like "all applicable > > patches" or "all generally useful patches"? > > > > It seems strange to send project specific patches together with cover > > saying that they aren't generally applicable and shouldn't be merged, > > just because of this requirement. > > It was done this way to prevent people from cheating and claiming something > was > (effectively) not useful/applicable/etc when it some special secret sauce.
Perhaps one could use [FYI] instead of [PATCH] in the mail subject to make the intention even clearer, and patchwork could get configured to not track such patches or at least not show them as new? Just a thought. As it stands now, there's an entry for this patch that someone (Richard?) will have to close: https://patchwork.openembedded.org/series/4056/ -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
