From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933434Ab3GSMQc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:16:32 -0400
Received: from intma.in ([199.191.58.34]:38674 "HELO intma.in"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id S1751149Ab3GSMQa (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:16:30 -0400
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:16:28 -0400
From: Kurt H Maier <khm@sdf.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19]
 3.10.1-stable review)
Message-ID: <20130719121628.GA26888@intma.in>
References: <20130715180403.GD15531@xanatos>
 <CA+55aFxmV83=_kjsHGbXFwQW9tXdbT6vyEGcuDTC00X0JJvB7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130715184642.GE15531@xanatos>
 <CA+55aFx+W9V845zcVrUWXvL=qtYYSX=Tj25d4im4gKV5pHA35Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130715195316.GF15531@xanatos>
 <20130715204135.GH15531@xanatos>
 <CA+55aFzwfAkWA6JZruXNKX2=xd-oWM=G8FKhWCVn2xkpR_1sUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130718103907.GC23558@gmail.com>
 <20130718160754.GC5440@xanatos>
 <20130719092256.GC25784@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130719092256.GC25784@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:22:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> ... and now you want to 'shut down' the discussion. With all due respect, 
> you started it, you have put out various heavy accusations here and 
> elsewhere, so you might as well take responsibility for it and let the 
> discussion be brought to a conclusion, wherever that may take us, compared 
> to your initial view?
> 

This wasn't about having a discussion, it was about "taking a stand,"
and since the reaction to the stand wasn't unanimously supportive, it's
easier to take it inside the wire, out of public view, before backing
down.

khm