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
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:20:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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 :-(

I owe you nothing. From where I stand, I did nothing wrong.

--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-13 13:39    [W:0.071 / U:0.612 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site