Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: When we detect that a 16550 was in fact part of a NatSemi SuperIO chip | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Sun, 22 May 2005 15:14:13 +0100 |
| |
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 14:41 +0100, Russell King wrote: > Firstly, I admit to accidentally applying David's patch, which I'm > sorry for doing. However, that can't be undone.
Your apology is accepted, but isn't what I was asking for -- and neither was I asking that you undo it, which obviously isn't possible.
I just wanted to you confirm that you wouldn't do it again. Wasn't that much clear from the conversation?
You pointed out that I have the right not to send you patches, and I replied that I was already exercising that right, but I'd merely Cc'd you on this particular patch as a courtesy. I said "I don't want to have to stop Cc'ing you when I send patches which you might be interested in. Please either commit my patches with correct attribution, or don't commit them at all."
Your reply didn't include a response to that specific request and seemed to be disagreeing. So yes, I asked for clarification because I really don't want to be in a position where I have to refuse to Cc you when making changes I know you care about...
<dwmw2_gone> rmk: you didn't reply to my last mail. Do you want me to continue to Cc you on stuff I think you'll care about? <rmk> dwmw2: because there's no point in responding any further. <rmk> dwmw2: certainly not until OSDL provide the results of their investigation. <dwmw2_gone> rmk: I asked a specific question. Are you going to continue to take patches on which you were Cc'd merely as a courtesy, mangle the attribution, and send them on? <dwmw2_gone> If so, I'll refrain from Ccing you in future <dwmw2_gone> If you are going to either refrain from mangling the attribution, or refrain from sending them on in mangled form, then that's fine and I'll continue to Cc you. <rmk> dwmw2: you know my policy, and I don't see why I should double-standard and open myself up to further flames just because your[sic] whinging and being your usual bloody minded self over this. <dwmw2_gone> rmk: I know your policy and that's why I sent the patch to akpm instead of to you. I Cc'd you as a courtesy. Yet you still mangled the attribution and sent my patch on. <dwmw2_gone> So... are you going to refrain from doing that in future, or am I going to stop Ccing you? <rmk> dwmw2: oh fuck you, sorry. I'm really not in the mood for your bloody mindedness. * rmk wanders off <dwmw2_gone> fine. Then don't bitch in future if I change stuff without Ccing you
It wasn't an unreasonable request, Russell. I didn't ask you to abandon your 'policy'; I just asked you not to apply my patches if you insist on sticking to that policy unconditionally. Again, I'm sorry if you find that request too onerous or unreasonable. I _could_ relieve you of that task by just sending patches in without letting you see them -- but as I said, I'd rather not.
But if I'm really being filed to /dev/null then the question is moot. I shall simply not bother to Cc you in future when submitting patches I think you'll care about. The question is therefore answered; thank you.
-- dwmw2
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |