From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> To: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, arm@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PULL REQ] IXP4xx changes for Linux 3.7 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:55:38 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20121029095538.GE21164@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <m3a9vkahci.fsf@intrepid.localdomain> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:01:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Hi, > > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes: > > Also, never rebase your tree immediately before sending a pull > > request. > > I did not, of course. My mail stated: > "Build-tested for now. This is based on your current tree tip because it > depends on commits following 3.6 release." You're lucky that you didn't get flamed by Linus himself for that, as others _have_ been in the past. > Normally I wouldn't rebase, but had to (as you well knew) - because you > commited a conflicting patch to this very IXP4xx arch. Using your logic, > you were supposed to get an Ack from me (or from Imre) for this patch. If you had *bothered* asking the arm-soc people to pull your tree _instead_ of Linus, then that problem becomes the arm-soc's problem, not yours. That means _you_ end up with _less_ work to do. Yet, instead of seeing that benefit, whenever you've been asked to send your tree via arm-soc, you throw your toys out of your pram and basically refuse. So, you're making *more* work for yourself by not participating in arm-soc (as I've explained to you before.) The _ONLY_ thing you have to do is send your pull request to the arm-soc people instead of Linus before the merge window opens. You don't need to rebase your stuff on a different tree, you can still use Linus' tree as a basis. You have offered no technical reason why you can't participate in arm-soc which has stood up to screutiny. The only reasons you've offered seem to be: 1. it'll be more work (untrue) 2. you look after platforms which aren't in mainline and you're not submitting to mainline. Both of these a total nonsense arguments when it comes to the _route_ that your patches make their way into mainline. They have absolutely no bearing on the path your changes take AT ALL. > Don't get me wrong. If I had time for this it could be different. > Unfortunately IXP4xx is a legacy arch, and for me it's simply a hobby at > this point. Given the raised barriers to participate, probably aimed at > paid maintainers, I have to quit doing this. As you're being difficult and not willing to co-operate, and for whatever reason building this issue into a mountain, this unfortunately sounds to me like a good thing. Hopefully, a more co-operative maintainer will step up in your place who can see the benefits.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PULL REQ] IXP4xx changes for Linux 3.7 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:55:38 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20121029095538.GE21164@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <m3a9vkahci.fsf@intrepid.localdomain> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:01:17AM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Hi, > > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes: > > Also, never rebase your tree immediately before sending a pull > > request. > > I did not, of course. My mail stated: > "Build-tested for now. This is based on your current tree tip because it > depends on commits following 3.6 release." You're lucky that you didn't get flamed by Linus himself for that, as others _have_ been in the past. > Normally I wouldn't rebase, but had to (as you well knew) - because you > commited a conflicting patch to this very IXP4xx arch. Using your logic, > you were supposed to get an Ack from me (or from Imre) for this patch. If you had *bothered* asking the arm-soc people to pull your tree _instead_ of Linus, then that problem becomes the arm-soc's problem, not yours. That means _you_ end up with _less_ work to do. Yet, instead of seeing that benefit, whenever you've been asked to send your tree via arm-soc, you throw your toys out of your pram and basically refuse. So, you're making *more* work for yourself by not participating in arm-soc (as I've explained to you before.) The _ONLY_ thing you have to do is send your pull request to the arm-soc people instead of Linus before the merge window opens. You don't need to rebase your stuff on a different tree, you can still use Linus' tree as a basis. You have offered no technical reason why you can't participate in arm-soc which has stood up to screutiny. The only reasons you've offered seem to be: 1. it'll be more work (untrue) 2. you look after platforms which aren't in mainline and you're not submitting to mainline. Both of these a total nonsense arguments when it comes to the _route_ that your patches make their way into mainline. They have absolutely no bearing on the path your changes take AT ALL. > Don't get me wrong. If I had time for this it could be different. > Unfortunately IXP4xx is a legacy arch, and for me it's simply a hobby at > this point. Given the raised barriers to participate, probably aimed at > paid maintainers, I have to quit doing this. As you're being difficult and not willing to co-operate, and for whatever reason building this issue into a mountain, this unfortunately sounds to me like a good thing. Hopefully, a more co-operative maintainer will step up in your place who can see the benefits.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-29 9:57 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-10-13 21:22 [PULL REQ] IXP4xx changes for Linux 3.7 Krzysztof Halasa 2012-10-13 21:22 ` Krzysztof Halasa 2012-10-14 20:02 ` Arnd Bergmann 2012-10-14 20:02 ` Arnd Bergmann 2012-10-17 22:01 ` Krzysztof Halasa 2012-10-17 22:01 ` Krzysztof Halasa 2012-10-19 16:25 ` Jason Cooper 2012-10-19 16:25 ` Jason Cooper 2012-10-29 8:29 ` Richard Cochran 2012-10-29 8:29 ` Richard Cochran 2012-10-30 22:27 ` Arnd Bergmann 2012-10-30 22:27 ` Arnd Bergmann 2012-10-31 13:24 ` Jason Cooper 2012-10-31 13:24 ` Jason Cooper 2012-10-29 9:55 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message] 2012-10-29 9:55 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2012-10-30 0:46 ` Ryan Mallon 2012-10-30 0:46 ` Ryan Mallon
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20121029095538.GE21164@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \ --to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \ --cc=arm@kernel.org \ --cc=arnd@arndb.de \ --cc=khc@pm.waw.pl \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.