2.9 planning/progress docs?

Andrew Jeffery andrew at aj.id.au
Fri Oct 30 16:15:07 AEDT 2020

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, at 01:22, Ed Tanous wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:22 AM Garrett, Mike (HPE Server Firmware)
> <mike.garrett at hpe.com> wrote:
> > We have some patches for dbus-sensors specific to our platforms that are frequently being invalidated by updates upstream, and instead of constantly regenerating our patches, it would be nice to know when the upstream has accomplished its goals for 2.9 and we can regenerate our patches once.  We are still getting acquainted with the processes here.
> >
> The best answer here is to get your patches into review and onto
> master, then you shouldn't ever need to regenerate your downstream
> patches again.  Pushing a gerrit review is significantly less effort
> than even a single rebase, and you might gain some valuable insight
> from the maintainer doing so.  I understand the realities of that in
> the corporate world are not ideal, and sometimes you have technical
> conflicts that are hard to resolve, but at the very least if patches
> are "unmergeable" but in review, the maintainer can take this into
> consideration when other patches are merged, and possibly point out
> breaks.

Very late to the party here, but 100% on the above. As a maintainer I'm not 
really prepared to cater to code I can't see - taking the time to push your 
work to gerrit will get my attention, and:

1. Help me appreciate your use-cases
2. Help you reduce your maintenance burden, and
3. Help others who might share your use-cases.

It's always possible that others will pick your patches up and get them merged 
for you.


More information about the openbmc mailing list