On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:39:40PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:23:50PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > after most feedback for my series "drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev > > > to drm_dev"[1] was positive in principle, here comes a new series. > > > > I find it obnoxious to send a new series within 24 hours of the first, > > while the discussion is still in progress, and it's a misrepresentation > > of the in-progress dicussion to say most of the feedback was positive. > > > > This is not the way to reach consensus. > > Let me tell you I didn't had any obnoxious intentions when sending this > new series. I honestly still think that the feedback was mostly positive > to the idea to get rid of struct drm_device *dev. Most discussion was > about splitting the series and the right name to use instead of "dev". And then you have a former and current maintainers that tell you that they'd prefer not to merge it at all. Ignoring those concerns and then sending a new version right away is, if not obnoxious, definitely aggressive. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
