On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 02:13:48PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:31:34AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > I sent a reminder on 20th February about it, and we discussed it, and I > > > said at the time I did not have time to test your patch. Ville commented > > > on your patch, which confused me a little, but having worked it out, I > > > reworked the patch from 21st November to fix that, creating this patch > > > series. > > > > > > I did not post it, because I hadn't tested it (since the Juno requires > > > a long-winded way to update the kernel), so I never got around to > > > testing this. So, this series pre-dates your v2 patch by a good few > > > weeks. > > > > That information was privy to you and would've been nice to share with me. > > So what the _hell_ do you think _this_ sentence means? It _was_ shared > with you. > > The following series is what I came up with, although I've had no time > to test it. > > which was in the mail which was the parent to the series? Does it > mean I'm bouncing a ball around the back yard maybe? > > No, the information was there, you chose not to read it, and *you* > fucked up. Notice that it is PAST TENSE, which means it HAPPENED IN > THE PAST. NOT PRESENT. This is basic english comprehension. Hey, you fail basic english comprehension too! My sentence was referring to your last sentence: "So, this series pre-dates your v2 patch by a good few weeks." That was the information that you have failed to share. > > > > Now, due to the amount of patches I carry: > > > > > > $ git lg origin.. | wc -l > > > 491 > > > > > > I work against Linus' tree _only_, so all patches I post are based on > > > Linus' kernel, and not random other git trees. I do not randomly fetch > > > other git trees to base patches on them, because that would cause me > > > insane merging issues so that I can test half the stuff I'm carrying. > > > > I understand (to the best of my abilities) your position and the fact that > > as a maintainer of a large subsystem you have a specific workflow that you > > don't want to polute with minor exceptions. I would also ask you to understand > > that not everyone works in the same way as you and that other maintainers > > and other subsystems have different workflows and requirements. Having my > > tree as part of the DRM subtree means that we work mostly on the recent > > Linus' -rc up until about -rc4 and the quickly switch to linux-next. So one > > way of approaching this is to drop the arch/arm frame of thought when > > contributing to other trees and adopt their workflow (you know, the "when > > in Rome, do what romans do" attitude). The other way is to go to different > > maintainers and ask for special status and tell them that their puny drivers > > and tree don't matter that much compared to your mighty workflow and they > > should all bend to your greatness (the "all your bases belong to us" mindset). > > For christ sake, I sent the patches out because I thought it would be > useful to show what I had come up with, because I believed it to be of > use. > > I won't make that mistake again, I'll just delete such work, because > it's obviously far too much hassle to work with other people, because > they don't READ. > > > > Now, it's true that they're not against -rc, but are currently against > > > 4.10 - it seems that I missed rebasing _this_ particular branch to > > > 4.11-rc yet, although most of my other branches are. > > > > And how would you have handled this situation? Another maintainer sending > > you a patchset based on an older tree that doesn't match your currently > > published one? Would you have gone to the trouble of rebasing their work, > > or ask them do get back to you with a better series? > > If the other work is better, then I would have replaced what I had > already merged with the better version, or ask for an update against > the current version. > > I doubt that I'm going to get any time what so ever to test either > version, so I'm going to delete my version and wait for your version > to trickle through - which I guess will be in about two months time, > after the next merge window. Good. Thanks! Liviu > > -- > RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ > FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up > according to speedtest.net. -- ==================== | I would like to | | fix the world, | | but they're not | | giving me the | \ source code! / --------------- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
