On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> If you think this has anything to do with Intel's ability to break your hardware >> on every merge then you've got your wires crossed. > > No, it's about the fact that I expect to be pushed code that is > WRITTEN AND TESTED BEFORE THE MERGE WINDOW. > > The merge window is not for writing new code. The code that gets > merged should have been written two weeks ago already. The only new > code that I want to see are actual regressions. > > I have been talking about this for YEARS now. It's not a new issue. I > hate seeing patches sent to me while they are clearly still being > discussed and developed. There's something seriously wrong there when > that happens. Like seriously you really think VFS locking rework wasn't under development or discussion when you merged it? I'm sure Al would have something to say about it considering the number of times he cursed in irc about that code after you merged it. Here's the point you are missing. I'd quite happily have pushed this *outside the merge window* because it solves a real problem with 0 probability of introducing any new problems, so f'ing what if it was under discussion everything in the kernel is still being discussed and developed. The ABI change was a minor move of the field to leave a larger hole for future changes, it wasn't a fucking fanotify syscall. This isn't even close to the level of the usual type of fuckups you get in a merge window, it just happens you were cc'ed on the discusson, otherwise I'm betting you'd never even notice. I'm betting something much worse landed in this merge window that you should be giving a fuck about, but this isn't the droid you are lookin for. Dave. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
