lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback

* Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> Why am _I_ responsible for which kernel version _Catalin_ used
> for _his_ patches when _he_ committed them?

If you then pull that tree from him and push it out to
linux-next? Then *of course* you are responsible, it was your
decision to pull it.

I frequently reject pulls from subsystem maintainers on similar
(and sometimes lesser) grounds - because such mistakes tend to
compound with time.

The thing is, if you do Git pulls from someone then you must be
absolutely anal about it, because you cannot really fix things
up after the fact. The people you pull from must be your
extended arms, they must be doing an equal or better job than
you. That gives a basis of trust.

Once that is established, you can be permissive about mistakes.

But arguing that you are not responsible for what you pull is
absolutely grotesque and establishes a new low for this
discussion really...

Also, as I told you in the very first mail, I am *fine* with
this having happened, so you having zapped the commits is
indefensible IMO. Mistakes do happen and the patch is fine
technically and sfr and Linus could have handled the trivial
conflict. What I suggested was to do it a bit better in the
future. Is that too much to ask for?

> You're insane. Totally.

I think you owe me an apology :-(

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-13 13:23    [W:0.166 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site