[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/2] x86/purgatory: Make sure we fail the build if has missing symbols
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 03:38:22PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> So I've send out 2 versions, not 5 not 10, but only 2 versions in
> the past 2 days and you start complaining about me rushing this and
> not fixing it properly, to me that does not come across positive.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding: when you send a patchset which is not
marked RFC, I read this, as, this patchset is ready for application. But
then the 0day bot catches build errors which means, not ready yet.

And I believe you expected for the 0day bot to test the patches first
and they should then to be considered for application. Yes, no?

That's why I suggested you to do randconfig builds yourself and not
depend on the 0day bot as it is known to be unreliable.

So I didn't do anything to make you feel negative - definitely not

> More specifically my intentions / motives on this were well intended
> and I too believe in fixing things the proper way. Your reply suggested
> that I just want to rush this through, which calls my motives into
> question, for which in my mind there was no reason.
> If you complain about 2 versions in 2 days, or 5 versions over 5 months
> then that feels exaggerated and it certainly does not give me a feeling
> that the effort which I'm putting into this is being appreciated.

I believe I already explained what my problem with that is. If you don't
see it, then let's agree to disagree.

> Anyways we have a plan how to move forward with this now, so lets
> focus on that.

Yes, let's do that.


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-12 15:49    [W:0.066 / U:0.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site