[oe] [PATCH 1/9] networkmanager: fix gobject-introspection/musl and cleanup

[akuster808]

On 04/16/2018 01:29 AM, Andreas Müller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:53 PM, akuster808 <akuster808 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/09/2018 03:02 PM, Andreas Müller wrote:
>>>> This adresses the comments for recent patch which updated nm to 1.10.6 and is a
>>>> follow-up for [1].
>>> There is a form of this  already in my stagging/master-next. Should it
>>> be removed and replaced by this one?
>> Please replace - with the first version I introduced a parse error!
>>
>> Andreas
> Hi Armin,
>
> Just checked master-next: There is still V1
> (30b50a479c496e722d8ca590e60d3b34bcda2d67) of this patch which causes
> parse errors. Your follow-up
> (45cd132ff9d64902eb0152b5a3ee4c1a1c9504f5) patch fixes parsing but
> breaks the logic.
>
> Sorry that I have to say this: Our collaboration is far from working:
> I wrote this several times that V1 breaks parsing / you asked in in
> this thread which patch to take but still I see you have taken the
> wrong version.
>
> Don't misunderstand me: I don't want to criticise your work because I
> know you very busy and take care of many issues - there is lots more
> than checking my patches :)
My  misunderstanding. This is a learning experience for me. I have not
been clean on when the transition for the layer maintainers was to take
on full ownership of reviewing and checking patches being submitted to
the list.  I will only accept patches that have been ok'ed and are
signed off by you for the layers you maintain.

What do you think?

>
> Current situation causes extra efforts for both of us so what can we
> do to improve the situation?
>
> For networkmanager: I had to learn that musl is not fixed. Although I
> don't plan to use musl I suggest to send V3 with fixed musl because I
> really want to get this closed.
I plan on creating a 'sumo" branch this weekend.

kind regards,
Armin
>
> Andreas