Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | | Date | Sun, 31 Jul 2011 14:45:00 -1000 | | Subject | Re: [GIT] [3.1] MFD pull request |
| |
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > This is the MFD pull request for the 3.1 merge window.
Guys, I'm getting *really* fed up with these kinds of trees.
This -git tree clearly had no testing at all, and cannot possibly have been in -next.
How do I know? It's based on something I pushed out this morning, so all the commits are really recent.
DO NOT DO THIS. It annoys the hell out of me to pull something and be able to definitely say immediately that the person who wrote the pull request clearly gave that particular git tree zero amount of actual testing.
I pulled this time, because I just cannot find it in myself to care too much about mfd.
But for the very same reason, next time I notice people rebasing their trees on top of random points, I will just not pull. If I see that the tree they based stuff on is from the merge window, I'll just go "this guy clearly means for this to get more testing, and meant for this to be pulled in *next* merge window".
And it doesn't matter one whit if you say something like "Oh, but I use quilt, so it's been tested there, and I just imported a very well tested tree into -git to push it to you". Dammit, even if you use quilt or something else to actually maintain your patch series, I KNOW DAMN WELL THAT YOU DIDN'T TEST THAT SERIES ON TOP OF THE RECENT CRAPPY NFS PULL!
So if you use quilt or something, then import the patch series on top of something STABLE AND SANE. Start off with the released 3.0, that at least doesn't have random pulls that have known compile issues. Use that for testing, and don't send me a re-based patch-series that clearly cannot possibly have been tested in that form, and that was based on a kernel that had ugly problems.
(And during the merge window, pretty much any "Linus' kernel of the day" tends to have some problem or other. DON'T USE RANDOM KERNELS FOR YOUR BASE).
Seriously. It really annoys the hell out of me when I get pull requests that are totally half-assed. And today I got *two* of them (that NFS pull request that you had based your tree on really was total crap too, and had clearly not been tested enough)
I'm grumpy. I don't want to know that submaintainers are sending me untested crap. So if you are too damn lazy to test things, at least make it not so horribly OBVIOUS to me that it's clearly not tested, and that it has clearly not been in -next in the form that you sent it to me. Try to at least spend *some* time trying to make your pull request look competent, ok?
But best would be if it was actually tested, and had actually been in -next for a week. That is *especially* true when you send me a pull request late in the merge window.
There is *NO* excuse for sending me crap this late in the merge window. If it's not ready at this point, don't send it to me. It's that simple. And yes, Trond, I'm very much looking at you too.
Linus
|  |