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:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:56:40PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Look into the fine conflict report Russell: it conflicts with
> > *Linus's* tree, because it's based off some random
> > barely-beyond-rc1 development window -rc3 base. Even at the
> > commit date of Feb 27 we had a more stable base tree available -
> > and especially when you pulled it, several weeks down the line,
> > -rc3 was not a defensible base for the integrated result.
>
> I'm not going to ask someone to rebase their patches after
> they've been fully tested on a set of platforms. [...]

That's a new argument which might be a valid concern in general
*if you make that decision when you pull the tree* - but you
should admit that you werent even aware of the conflict and of
the root cause behind it, let alone be in the position to
consider whether a rebase is justified in that case ...

( Paradoxially, rebasing is exactly what *you* ended up forcing
others to do. I have not asked you or Catalin to rebase any
existing commit. I merely asked about future plans. )

So I think you are just making this up on the fly. Really, if I
push back on you in a 100% *permissive* fashion, and if my
complaint is justified, then the proper response is for you to
push back on your contributors - while we can keep all commits
in place.

Instead you first pushed back on *me*, then you claimed that you
are not responsible for what you pull, then you started zapping
patches and claiming that you will never pull them again,
blaming it all on me.

Again, a storm in a teacup IMO.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-13 13:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans