Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:19:00 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL/NEXT] sched/arch: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler callback |
| |
* Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:26:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > As I said it in my first mail, doing that is unnecessary - > > but if you insist on being difficult then Catalin, feel free > > to pull the patch from tip:sched/arch: > > Nope, I'm not taking the tree anymore, [...]
So instead of saying "sure, lets avoid conflicts next time around" you are now *refusing* to take technically perfectly fine patches just because another maintainer asked you to use a different workflow for future patches? Wow ...
Regardless of the imperfect workflow I certainly find Catalin's work useful technically, so I'll send his preparatory commit to Linus in this merge window - I hope you will see sense later and won't block his subsequent ARM patches...
> [...] you've refused to behave in a reasonable way. Your > problem to sort out now.
For the record, that's utter nonsense:
- *You* failed to reply on the public thread to sort this out properly in the Git space, avoiding conflicts naturally:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/232
While generally we don't mind conflicts, I do mind *avoidable* conflicts - and this was such a case.
- *You* created a conflict by taking a tree that patched some rather old version of the scheduler, shortly before the merge window, when maintainer capacity is the shortest. PeterZ is a nice guy who will agree to just about any approach, but I'm quite sure he did not tell you to do *that* ;-)
- *You* replied to me in a rather dismissive and increasingly obnoxious style when I inquired about it constructively:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/13/79
There were several easy solutions - I cannot believe that we are still arguing this:
- it literally took me two minutes to create a proper Git solution, it's not rocket science. You could have done it, or I could have done it for you (as I have done it).
- Or you could have replied to the public thread, explaining why that is not desirable.
- Or you could have said "sure thing, lets do it that way next time around".
Thanks,
Ingo
| |