From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755900Ab1HEToV (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:44:21 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:23890 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753845Ab1HEToS convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:44:18 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,324,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="4544535" From: "Brown, Len" To: Linus Torvalds , Stephen Rothwell CC: Stephen Warren , Mark Brown , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:44:15 -0700 Subject: RE: next-200110804 ARM build break (cpuidle_call_idle) Thread-Topic: next-200110804 ARM build break (cpuidle_call_idle) Thread-Index: AcxTGWwt/lwbrg2GRV+gYxBk9qieBQAi4RIA Message-ID: References: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF049EEAB704@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <20110805092941.136089871cddff926cf1dbb7@canb.auug.org.au> <20110805105231.7f8abe91210c30580ff40d52@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > The last three commits in the idle tree that you took from Len were in > > linux-next until April 15 and then disappeared until yesterday.  The last > > of these was broken back then and has been committed exactly the same now > > and still breaks arm and sh. > > > > I have reverted that commit from your tree for today ... > > Len, this is *exactly* why I com plained about the git trees you pushed to me. Ugh, 3 flubs from me in 1 day -- I should have taken the day off! I actually fixed that typo, but failed to include it:-( > And then I pulled anyway, because you and others convinced me things > had been in -next despite the commit dates being odd. > > Let's just say that I'm really *really* disappointed. And dammit, you > need to fix your workflow. Don't add random commits late. If you're > offline, you're offline, and you send the old tested tree, not some > last-minute crap. Okay. > Next time I find reason to complain, I just won't pull. In fact, I'm > seriously considering a rather draconian measure for next merge > window: I'll fetch the -next tree when I open the merge window, and if > I get anything but trivial fixes that don't show up in that "next tree > at the point of merge window open", I'll just ignore that pull > request. Because clearly people are just not being careful enough. Agreed. I don't think it would be 'Draconian' to enforce a pre-merge-window-merge-window. Indeed, if it were automated and the timing were clearly known ahead of time, then the structure would be helplful. thanks, -Len