lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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 <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> 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: <20110509132738.GB16919@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
> 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 <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
| To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
| "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
| Subject: i8253 clocksource consolidation
| Message-ID: <20110508182407.GN27807@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
|
| 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 <ralf@linux-mips.org>
| To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
| Cc: John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
| Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
|
| 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
acceptable.

> 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 <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
> AuthorDate: Sun May 8 18:55:19 2011 +0100
> Commit: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
> 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
hours".

> 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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site