Subject: Re: Please pull from 'for-2.6.28' branch

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:11:38 +1100

On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 13:04 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Please pull from 'for-2.6.28' branch of
> 
> 	master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git for-2.6.28
> 
> to receive the following updates:

Ok so I'm not too happy. Kumar, you need to be a little bit more careful
with your git tree. Here are a few things that are causing me problems
at the moment and making me not pull this one. Some of them I already
sent separate emails for but let's put it all together:

 - First, please try to keep a consistent merge branch. Even if it ends
up merging separate branches from you internally.

 - Please use git request-pull or at least provide me with the merge
base in the email if it's not my current master or next HEAD, and since
it makes my life a bit harder too, please try to have your tree based on
mine unless you have some conflicts to sort out.

 - Please spend a bit more time cleaning up the cset subjects and
comments. For example:

	"powerpc: remove device_type = "boad_control"

There are a few problems with this one. Not everybody knows what
"device_type" is, it's not obvious that it's a device-tree change, and
you may notice that I've been trying to keep the first character after
the category: uppercase. I would have preferred something like:

	powerpc: Remove device_type = "board_control" properties in .dts files

Another one that doesn't pass my criteria is:

	OF: SPI: specify chip select active high

I don't like caps, and it's not the generally accepted format. It should
be something like:

	of/spi: Provide a way to specify chip select polarity

Nicer heh ?

I almost always rewrite subjects and sometimes fixup descriptions when I
merge patches. Please do so too.

 - Finally, the Kconfig change shouldn't have been in your tree at all,
or at least not without my or paulus ack and prior argeement that it
should be merged that way. No big deal with this obviously correct
patch but where do we put the limit ?

Cheers,
Ben.