On 17.10.2017 01:14, David Hendricks wrote:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@gmx.at wrote:
While there was a bunch of patches that have been piled up back then it was less of a problem then the increasing divergence between the chromiumos fork and upstream. Thus we have discussed ways to converge that (by pulling changes mainly from upstream into chromium but also vice versa) and also increase the pace of merging stuff into upstream later. This was still with no intention to switch to git because of Carl-Daniel's concerns.
I'm surprised that you think that chromiumos's divergence is a *worse* problem than the huge backlog of upstream patches. The chromiumos fork is self-contained, has its own review system, its own testing, and is targeted at a narrow set of devices. I don't understand how it could have been a problem for upstream and would be interested if you can elaborate on this point.
I think there are at least two views on this:
What might happen in such a case: People loose interest in upstream and less patches get send there. (This might even have a positive effect on the patch queue.)
What I think happened (and maybe Stefan had something like this in mind): Progress on upstream stalled on more invasive topics because people tried to find a solution fitting both branches, first. FWIW, this was the case for better layout support in upstream. Maybe there were more topics stalled, I don't know the cros fork well enough.
Nico