From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D9AC46475 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:03:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516BB20671 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:03:15 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 516BB20671 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=1wt.eu Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728382AbeJWRZl (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:25:41 -0400 Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:35426 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727978AbeJWRZk (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:25:40 -0400 Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w9N92jQH023449; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:02:45 +0200 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:02:45 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Boris Brezillon , Catalin Marinas , Christoph Hellwig , Guenter Roeck , Jacek Anaszewski , Jens Axboe , Linus Walleij , Mark Brown , Ulf Hansson , Greg KH , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Git pull ack emails.. Message-ID: <20181023090245.GC23341@1wt.eu> Reply-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my > pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where bad > might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to > fix up my merge" to "I'm going to have to look more closely at that > warning" to "uhhuh, I'm going to just undo the pull entirely because > it ended up being broken"). Is that a big problem ? I mean probably those who need an ACK just want to be sure their PR was not lost between them and you. It's not a guarantee that the code will be kept till the release anyway, and I tend to think that changing your mind after attempting a build is not different than changing your mind 3 days later. So when this happens, you're possibly expected to simply notify the author later saying "sorry, I changed my mind and finally I dropped your code for this or that reason". That should be enough to cover the vast majority of use cases, no ? Just my two cents, Willy