[alsa-devel] More HDA NID / control / proc related changes

[Jaroslav Kysela]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> Or, use the same name snd_hda_add_nid() and snd_hda_add_nids(), unify
> the argument order, but make the latter accept array, or so.

Renamed in this way. Please, check topic/hda-nid or for-next branch.

>>>>> branch based on the upstream tree.  Right now I can't pull your
>>>>> commits but only do cherry-picks, which is basically stupid when both
>>>>> are using GIT.
>>>>
>>>> I found the possible changes (resolving clashes) during merges very evil,
>>>> altough I understand your easy work scheme.
>>>
>>> Right.  IOW, the commits that have been already published for the
>>> public tree shouldn't be rebased.  The rebasing is the most evil thing
>>> for the published commits.
>>>
>>> Rebasing doesn't matter for local commits, of course.  Also, it's also
>>> more or less OK for some test trees / branches.  But, never rebase if
>>> a branch gets merged.
>>>
>>>> Also, I don't like the missing
>>>> lines in comments (Signed-off-by etc.) for merged patches for all involved
>>>> people. It makes more difficult to track the patch flow.
>>>
>>> Well, the meta info has to be set properly *before* merge.  So, the
>>> only question is whether a developed branch is ready for merging or
>>> not...
>>
>> Unfortunately, I'm not talking about the meta-info. The patch delivery
>> should be in the patch comment itself according to the SubmittingPatches
>> document. For example:
>>
>> commit 761c9d45d14e0afa3c0b8eb84b4075602e50533b
>> Author: Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net>
>> Date:   Thu Dec 10 11:15:55 2009 -0600
>>
>>      ASoC: Fix build of OMAP sound drivers
>>
>>      ....
>>      Reported-by: Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar at ti.com>
>>      Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net>
>>      Acked-by: Liam Girdwood <lrg at slimlogic.co.uk>
>>      Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
>>
>> Where's your Signed-off-by: line? You rely on the SCM system to obtain
>> this information from the 'Merge' commit. I don't think that it's good.
>
> This is fully normal.  Do you see sign-off in each pull by Linus?

Linus should be only exception, because this patch route is quite obvious.

> Many trees with sub-trees or sub-projects are done in that way.
> See x86 tree, for example.

It does not mean that it's the correct way.

Anyway, I created for-next branch in my repository. Could you import changes
without explicitly asking if you do not have any comments? I'll merge 
patches from Clemens there as well.

 					Thanks,
 						Jaroslav

-----
Jaroslav Kysela <perex at perex.cz>
Linux Kernel Sound Maintainer
ALSA Project, Red Hat, Inc.