Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:04:19 +0200 | From | Michal Simek <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] arch/microblaze fixes for 2.6.35-rc3 v2 |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> Seems like you will have written more angry emails than there will be >> new commits in 2.6.35-rc3 ;-) > > Well, partly in order to be fair. I did consider letting architectures > like microblaze just off the hook entirely - it's not like it will affect > a lot of people. But at the same time, I don't want to be in the situation > that some people get to send me patches just because I don't happen to > think that their changes will matter to most others. > > And at this stage, I'd rather be too strict than too lenient. If -rc3 has > no new regressions, and fixes the ones that hit people worst, I'll be very > happy. I can be more open to patches after I get back, if it turns out > that I was _too_ strict for -rc3. > > As to the number of "no, I won't take it" emails, I suspect a large part > of that is simply because most developers (understandably) do not read > lkml, stauing mostly on the development lists that are more specific to > their particular area. As a result, there's no real way to reliably reach > people, and I end up sending basically the same message several times. > > Which obviously tends to also then make the messages more cross ;)
First of all let me apologize for this situation. There is no excuse that I sent new features in requests after rc.
I've changed my workflow and I will send new pull request with the strict regression fixes only. There will be only two patches which I would like to add to your tree.
Thanks and sorry for hassle, Michal
-- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng) w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854 Maintainer of Linux kernel 2.6 Microblaze Linux - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/ Microblaze U-BOOT custodian
| |