From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757731Ab2AKQqb (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:46:31 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:51847 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750970Ab2AKQqa (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:46:30 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Nicolas Ferre Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb tree with the arm-soc tree Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:46:24 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.2.0-rc7; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Guennadi Liakhovetski , Olof Johansson , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Wu, Josh" References: <20120111133146.990e2b7115c9fa80e8fc3234@canb.auug.org.au> <201201111450.02798.arnd@arndb.de> <4F0DB16B.3010302@atmel.com> In-Reply-To: <4F0DB16B.3010302@atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201201111646.24731.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:3fBCWDRbNX0Ip7a0f40zD2i2vCOO0yVxCJMWz17aTfF BBY1Q/TIDDmlJIalC+zKdx5hXXUru2dWDefnbsm7Z0zAC977KC xE6UhWyNjqp5SPdJ5EExmy+hKt7ZCXBecIrukrGVCnErBUMs43 //Smm0aoColuMpvsgJcwTNfHTVwAAddDIl63bmeeXpXf9VPHfi WEtveUKmhtpeh156l7zyZMEDah8AJxHSmyXGvux/DscPxoR4C2 yBacOPeZXREecNZKWAiVUd3BpO14vlNL+jaxMTtZcaFQu8w+81 xXfKi734GtXODN8lYhlXECVkdaOgs7Ztco1cH9l1V4on7+GeKs XYd/98KyZHCQ2D8OAEVg= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 11 January 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > I am so astonished and sad about all this! I have the feeling of having > done exactly what Guennadi and Olof had asked me to do: What I get at > the end: people having a bad feeling about my work, not expected merge > conflicts which annoy everybody (only for a ridiculous amount of code), > my patches delayed and a comment saying that I cannot handle simple > dependency... > Nice result! I'm sorry for accusing you, you are right. You did exactly what was agreed on in the mail thread, I just reread the history. My impression is that Guennadi simply didn't know what he was doing when he sent you a patch based on a branch that was clearly not stable. > - Guennadi did not want to take SoC/board code in his tree > => I had to take those lines of code through at91/arm-soc breaking the > patch series and allowing the introduction of an out-of-sync merge This was probably the first mistake. It would have been trivial to handle all this if we had just stuck the same commit into both trees. > I have understood and approved all the reasons for the requested > changes, of course. But for which gain? > > Ok... well, it looks like a massive incomprehension which took us time > and ends up by wastefulness. Agreed. How about if you rebase the few other (non-ISI) patches that I had in arm-soc onto v3.2 and send me an updated pull request so I can send them on? There's no reason to hold them up. Arnd