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

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:51:34 +1100

On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:45 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> If you had conventions on naming this is the first I've heard of  
> them.  I know Paul asked about the [POWERPC] to powerpc: change on
> list.

Well, they weren't official, but others seem to have picked them up, no
big deal but heh, here now you know about them :-)

> I do so as well.  As stated above, if there are naming conventions  
> that are desired I'm happy to conform but just need to know what they
> are.

Well, my aim is mostly consistency. If you don't like what I want, I'm
happy to discuss it, but I'd like basically to keep consistency in the
naming conventions. In some cases though, my comment also refers to the
subject being a tad too vague to my taste. I know there isn't a strict
definition of what is good enough or not and we definitely don't want a
3 lines novel there, but in the case of the .dts file update, it would
have been useful to highlight that fact for example.

> The limit is based on trust.  I submitted all the other cleanup  
> patches to remove PPC_MERGE.  I think I can handle such a patch going
> via my tree.

I would have still preferred if we had discussed it before hand...

Cheers,
Ben.