Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 3 May 2015 15:43:55 -0600 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add patman patch automation script | From | Simon Glass <> |
| |
Hi Richard,
On 3 May 2015 at 14:43, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote: > Am 03.05.2015 um 22:40 schrieb Simon Glass: >>> But I don't think it makes much sense to carry it with the Linux kernel tree. >>> Other projects can also use it and it does not seem to be very Linux kernel >>> specific. >>> git, quilt and other great tools also have their own repositories. >> >> My reasoning is that: >> >> - more will find it / use it if it is in-tree >> - it avoids installation and old-version problems (e.g. I suppose this >> is why the device tree compiler is built-in) >> - it is somewhat Linux-specific (e.g. uses get_maintainers, >> checkpatch.pl) and can break if checkpatch.pl if the wrong version >> (e.g. you check out and send patches from an older tree) >> - it could be built into the Linux workflow [1] and might thereby >> reduce the amount of confusion and errors (did you run checkpatch?, >> your change log is in the wrong place, you forgot to add your >> sign-off, etc.) > > If we'd follow these arguments we'd have to move the whole GNU into the > kernel tree. ;-)
Well maybe the first two.
> checkpatch.pl and get_maintainers.pl are not really a show-stopper. > Other projects are using them too. You can make them also configurable. > i.e. check_script and get_maintaner_script.
Understood, I'm just explaining my reasoning for sending this patch. With U-Boot it has been very convenient to be able to rely on this being available in the tree. 3000 lines is a drop in the ocean with Linux's 22m lines.
But I fully understand your point of view. If nothing else, at least this series provides an easy way for people to try it out.
Regards, Simon
| |