[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm tree
    On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Russell King - ARM Linux <> wrote:
    > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:40:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > > maintainers (and not assume lack of ack after 24 hours means acceptance), or
    > >
    > > Wrong, 72 to 96 hours. Sunday to Wednesday/Thursday.
    > Not that this is really material (the argument is pretty much the same even had
    > you waited 3 days), but you are already wrong about the 'Sunday' part, because
    > you posted it to lkml on *Monday* 13:27 GMT:
    > Message-ID: <>
    > Mon, 9 May 2011 09:27:52 -0400

    Sigh. So you're only looking at the _second_ posting of them, not the first.
    Here's the message, minus the patch.

    | Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 19:24:07 +0100
    | From: Russell King - ARM Linux <>
    | To: Ralf Baechle <>, John Stultz <>,
    | "H. Peter Anvin" <>, Ingo Molnar <>
    | Subject: i8253 clocksource consolidation
    | Message-ID: <>
    | Ralf, John, Ingo, hpa,
    | Below you'll find a work in progress patch. We have three i8253 PIT
    | clocksource implementations in the kernel tree, which are all very
    | similar. It seems pointless to have three copies of the code knocking
    | about, so this patch creates a common version in drivers/clocksource.
    | This is a combined patch; I have it broken out into a series locally,
    | and follows on from other consolidation work which I've been doing with
    | ARM clocksources.
    | This patch build-tests cleanly on ARM for NetWinder (one of the footbridge
    | platforms which uses an i8253.)
    | So, do we think moving this to drivers/clocksource in this way is a
    | good idea? Any other comments? If feedback is positive, I'll rebase
    | them onto mainline, add the necessary cc's, and send them out properly.

    To which I had this _single_ response:

    | Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:07:35 +0100
    | From: Ralf Baechle <>
    | To: Russell King - ARM Linux <>
    | Cc: John Stultz <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
    | Ingo Molnar <>
    | I like this patch; it's been long overdue and and while atm the patch
    | does not seem to apply it seems to be mostly right.
    | Ralf

    And "it doesn't seem to apply" is precisely what I expected with the patch
    because of the conflicts with _other_ work which was in progress, and as I
    was asking in the original message about the _idea_, that is perfectly

    > How hard can it be for you to look up the dates of the events before you
    > accuse others of not listening?

    I think I've just proven above that it was Sunday, not Monday.

    > Then you committed/amdended it on Tuesday 7:20 GMT:
    > commit 3490f584b9ba5a0b6f63832fbc9c5ec72506697b
    > Author: Russell King <>
    > AuthorDate: Sun May 8 18:55:19 2011 +0100
    > Commit: Russell King <>
    > CommitDate: Tue May 10 08:20:54 2011 +0100

    Yes. Committed on _Sunday_ before I sent out the _first_ message which
    I've included above. Then tweaked and after Ralf's response, the series
    was then posted on _Monday_ in full. Then John responded with his ack,
    which caused the amendment on _Tuesday_ morning.

    And then _36_ further hours passed before the branch was merged into
    for-next on _Wednesday_ _evening_. So, Sunday evening to Wednesday
    evening. Three times 24 is 72 hours, which is what I corrected you to.

    > which is a mere 18 hours after it was mailed to lkml - and then you pushed it
    > out to linux-next some time after that, probably on the next day, Wednesday,
    > right?

    Are you _seriously_ trying to tell me that you have a problem with a commit
    dated 18 hours after being mailed out? If so, you're being rediculous here.

    Obviously I shouldn't have added John's ack, which was sent during Monday
    nighttime to the commit so quickly, but instead waited a week before doing
    so. Had I done that you wouldn't be complaining about "24 hours" or "18

    > It does not matter one little bit that you'd have been 'ready to rebase' once
    > more had some objection come in that short 2 days time window from Monday to
    > Wednesday, or any of the dates after that.

    Well, stop making such a big deal about "24 hours" or "18 hours" then,
    but start realizing that the commit date is actually a total
    _irrelevance_ to the time that it appeared in linux-next.

    Your continual waving of that point, and reduction in time period, just
    shows that you're trying to make this a _political_ issue, not a technical
    or social one, which again is born out by the amount of people _you_ added
    to this thread.

    > What i'm saying for the fourth time is that what you did here is not a proper
    > Git workflow: we only push bits out into permanent branches (and expose them to
    > conflicts, etc.) once they are final, and we only do that after making sure
    > that maintainers who maintain the trees of the affected files are fine with it
    > and make sure that there are no conflicts.

    Well, the fact that I messed up the function name was unfortunate and
    should've been caught locally, which I appologize for. I would have
    thought that much was obvious, but since you seem to believe that I
    _intentionally_ broke the x86 build.

    Anyway, the issue has been resolved _properly_ over the weekend, off-list,
    between Thomas and myself, in a way that results in no conflicts being
    exposed in any tree.

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-16 13:41    [W:0.039 / U:0.952 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site