Am 10.12.2012 20:40, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
[snip]
>> And people beeing subsystem maintainers AND driver maintainers have to
>> find a balance between processing pull requests and reviewing patches.
>> I'm not sure if I have understood yet how this balance should look
>> like... Can you e
Em Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:15:31 +0100
Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> On Mon 10 December 2012 14:07:09 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As discussed in Barcelona I would write a text describing requirements for
> > new
> > drivers and what to expect when submitting patches to linux-media.
> >
> >
Em Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:20:32 +0100
Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
[snip]
> > - not sure if this is possible: if a v2 patch series is posted, then
> > automatically remove v1. This would require sanity checks: same subject,
> > same author.
>
> There's a security issue here as it's easy to spoof a se
Em Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:50:21 +0100
Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> > >
> > > > - typedefs should't be used;
> > >
> > > CodingStyle, chapter 5.
>
> Surprisingly this chapter doesn't mention typedefs for function pointers.
> Those are very hard to manage without a typedef.
It seems you detected a p
Em Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:39:06 +0100
Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> On Tuesday 11 December 2012 08:29:30 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:52:39 +0100 Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
> > > On Monday 10 December 2012 16:33:13 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > > Em Mon,
On Mon 10 December 2012 14:07:09 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed in Barcelona I would write a text describing requirements for new
> drivers and what to expect when submitting patches to linux-media.
>
> This is a first rough draft and nothing is fixed yet.
>
> I have a few open q
Hi Hans,
On Tuesday 11 December 2012 12:50:21 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> I've added a few quick remarks below. I'll collect all the very useful
> feedback on Friday and post a new version. After that I'm on vacation
> for three weeks.
>
> On Tue 11 December 2012 11:29:30 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>
I've added a few quick remarks below. I'll collect all the very useful
feedback on Friday and post a new version. After that I'm on vacation
for three weeks.
On Tue 11 December 2012 11:29:30 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:52:39 +0100
> Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
>
> > Hi,
Hi Mauro,
On Tuesday 11 December 2012 08:29:30 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:52:39 +0100 Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
> > On Monday 10 December 2012 16:33:13 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Em Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:07:09 +0100 Hans Verkuil escreveu:
[snip]
> > > > Submitti
Em Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:52:39 +0100
Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday 10 December 2012 16:33:13 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:07:09 +0100 Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > As discussed in Barcelona I would write a text describing requirements
Hi,
On Monday 10 December 2012 16:33:13 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:07:09 +0100 Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As discussed in Barcelona I would write a text describing requirements for
> > new drivers and what to expect when submitting patches to linux-media
Em Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:17:23 +0100
Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> Am 10.12.2012 18:38, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> > Em Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:27:29 +0100
> > Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> >
> >> On Mon December 10 2012 16:56:16 Frank Schäfer wrote:
> >>> Am 10.12.2012 14:07, schrieb Hans Verkuil:
> >>>
Am 10.12.2012 18:38, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Em Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:27:29 +0100
> Hans Verkuil escreveu:
>
>> On Mon December 10 2012 16:56:16 Frank Schäfer wrote:
>>> Am 10.12.2012 14:07, schrieb Hans Verkuil:
>>>
>>>
3) This document describes the situation we will have when the
Em Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:45:40 +0200
Antti Palosaari escreveu:
> On 12/10/2012 07:38 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Yeah, the issue is that both reviewed, non-reviewed and rejected/commented
> > patches go into the very same queue, forcing me to revisit each patch again,
> > even the rejected
Em Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:07:09 +0100
Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed in Barcelona I would write a text describing requirements for new
> drivers and what to expect when submitting patches to linux-media.
>
> This is a first rough draft and nothing is fixed yet.
>
> I have a few
On 12/10/2012 07:38 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Yeah, the issue is that both reviewed, non-reviewed and rejected/commented
patches go into the very same queue, forcing me to revisit each patch again,
even the rejected/commented ones, and the previous versions of newer patches.
By giving rig
Em Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:27:29 +0100
Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> On Mon December 10 2012 16:56:16 Frank Schäfer wrote:
> > Am 10.12.2012 14:07, schrieb Hans Verkuil:
> >
> >
> > > 3) This document describes the situation we will have when the
> > > submaintainers
> > > take their place early next y
On Mon December 10 2012 16:56:16 Frank Schäfer wrote:
> Am 10.12.2012 14:07, schrieb Hans Verkuil:
>
>
> > 3) This document describes the situation we will have when the
> > submaintainers
> > take their place early next year. So please check if I got that part right.
> ...
>
> > Reviewed-by/Ac
Am 10.12.2012 14:07, schrieb Hans Verkuil:
> 3) This document describes the situation we will have when the submaintainers
> take their place early next year. So please check if I got that part right.
...
> Reviewed-by/Acked-by
>
>
> Within the media subsystem there are thre
19 matches
Mail list logo
