46dcfc8 (ARM: Update mach-types) removes used machine types
marek.vasut at gmail.com
Mon Aug 22 09:30:41 EDT 2011
On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:27:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 03:16:00PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2011 03:01:19 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > For further reading, see:
> > > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20110815.085325.ae6ee07d.e
> > > n.ht ml
> > Russell, calm down please.
> > Maybe it'd be better to just email the people with broken stuff, then
> > wait ... if they don't reply in a week (two weeks?) then remove their
> > stuff. And make that a policy.
> > What do you think ?
> Who do I email? Which entries are causing problems? That's the whole
> bloody point.
Isn't the email in your database? You can't just script that ?
> There's just far too much of it. The amount of effort required to sort
> through this file each time it needs to be updated has become *excessive*.
> The amount of effort required to go through the file and identify which
> entries are broken is *excessive*. The amount of effort required to
> find who to email is *excessive*.
Why not write a script for that ?
> I don't have a few days to do that - and I'm not going to repeat it
> every time the file needs to be updated anymore.
> So either I drop the change and we go back to having gplugd broken, or
> we keep the change and have the Eureka stuff broken. Anything else is
> far too much hastle.
> Given that the gplugd folk have sorted out their problems, and its the
> Eureka stuff which doesn't conform, I'd rather that Eureka was broken
> rather than gplugd.
Well then can't you split the change in two to avoid breaking both? We don't
want to introduce breakage, do we.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel