From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760096Ab2CMI4o (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:56:44 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:45820 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759565Ab2CMI4l (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:56:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:56:28 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Russell King Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20120313085628.GB6991@elte.hu> References: <20120313110840.7b444deb6b1bb902c15f3cdf@canb.auug.org.au> <20120313061622.GA24357@elte.hu> <20120313083310.GA27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120313083630.GA10131@elte.hu> <20120313084713.GB27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313084713.GB27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Russell King wrote: > Sorry, you're blaming the wrong person. I got the commit via > a pull, not via a patch. This is the most idiotic excuse I've ever read. Dammit, don't pull code you don't maintain and which you have not checked the background of, *especially* not if the originating discussion very clearly asked *you* to do it in another way. We were modifying that very code in this development cycle, in the scheduler tree - a fact highlighted by the conflict - which you could have seen yourself, had you even attempted to test-merge your tree to linux-next ... Let me quote PeterZ again: > > Russell, what's the status of these patches? I'd like to see > > them land in 3.4 if possible. I'm fine either way, I'll > > > > probably ask Ingo to pull your tree so that I can stack some > > other patches on top. Russell, read and reply to your mail in a timely and reliable fashion, that will avoid such mixups in the future. > If that's how you want to run your bit of the kernel, then > please be more responsive when you're sent patches and say how > you want to handle things. Don't ignore patches and then blame > people when conflicts happen. Stop blaming others for your own mistakes, one of the the scheduler maintainers replied to the patches a month ago, in an absolutely constructive fashion: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/232 You never replied to PeterZ that I can see. Again, fortunately it's not a big deal right now - both the commit and the conflict is trivial - but your current attitute towards applying patches and following discussions is rather sad and could cause bigger problems in the future. Thanks, Ingo