Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert | From | Jens Axboe <> | Date | Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:06:35 -0600 |
| |
On 08/31/2015 01:53 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:42:18PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 08/31/2015 01:29 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:14:07PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 08/31/2015 01:00 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>>>> Linus, please pull; this reverts a patch from Jens that was committed without >>>>> CCing be or being mailed out to any of the lists. Said patch wasn't in any way a >>>>> functional change and is something that damn well should have been discussed. >>>>> >>>>> Jens - what the goddamn fuck!? You've never touched the bcache code until now, >>>>> and when you finally get interested this is what you do!? >>>>> >>>>> While I am sympathetic to the arguments in favor of your patch, there _are_ some >>>>> damn good reasons I did it the way I did. If you want to have that discussion, >>>>> feel free to mail your patch out again after the revert. >>>> >>>> The patch was part of a larger series that I was working on, and I just >>>> wanted to flush out that dependency. Christoph review and acked it, it was >>>> by no means a sneaking in of a patch. >>> >>> I didn't see it until I went to rebase bcachefs onto 4.2 this morning. I triple >>> checked; this patch is not in any mailing list archive. And you certainly didn't >>> try to contact me. How is that _not_ sneaking it in? >> >> It's a simple cleanup patch, against a dormant driver. It was reviewed by >> Christoph, which is as good as it gets. Yes, it should have been posted, but >> it's not like we are talking about a rewrite or anything of that magnitude. >> You're grossly overreacting. I would do it again. > > Look, you've had your own periods as an unavailable maintainer so I wouldn't > throw stones - and it's no secret that I'm still working on bcache.
I am not throwing stones, just stating the upstream bcache has been dormant for more than a year.
> Really, as long as you think it's ok to commit patches without CCing the mailing > list _or_ the maintainer, then fuck you. I wouldn't do that to you and I don't > know anyone else who would, so as long as that's your attitude about it there's > really nothing to discuss.
I already said that, yes, it should have been posted. But it's not like it was unreviewed. Or a massive change, by any stretch.
And we're still not discussing the motives for why it looked like that in the first place?
-- Jens Axboe
| |