Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add patman patch automation script

[Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>]

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