Am Sonntag, den 05.02.2006, 00:20 +0100 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:10:37AM +0100, Oliver Endriss wrote: > > Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > > Hello Uwe, > > > > > > I made some mistakes in my handling of patch conflicts. I wouldn't > > > have thought that you would take this personally, nor could I have > > > imagined what effects it would have on your views of my person > > > and linux-dvb development as a whole. > > > ... > > > During my creating the patchset for akpm for 2.6.13-mm?, I found > > > that akpm had already applied a patch from Uwe to > > > Documentation/dvb/bt8xx.txt, which conflicted with other changes > > > made by Manu in CVS, and which also deleted some IMHO useful > > > information from the file. First I tried to merge the two > > > conflicting changes, but it looked like I would've ended up > > > rewriting the whole file by doing so. After about 10min I gave up. > > > > The real problem is that patches were accepted at akpm which should be > > discussed here and nowhere else. akpm should reject these and forward > > them to the appropriate subsystem mailing list or maintainer. > > > > Information flow must go from DVB/V4L repository to kernel, not vice > > versa (there are some exceptions but they do not apply in this case). > >... > > Andrew includes many patches into -mm, but usually doesn't forward them > to Linus without maintainer approval. Instead, he forwards non-approved > patches to the maintainers of the code being changed. > > This helps in reducing the number of patches being lost. > > Therefore, it's not unusual that Andrew accepted a patch by Uwe, but I > was very surprised if Andrew had forwarded such a patch to Linus without > maintainer approval. > > > Oliver > > cu > Adrian > Hi, I think we see first symptoms of a severe bureaucracy problem, as always introduced by the hope of more rain soon :8 I'm still willing to read Uwe's rant as some cry of despair and not as an cold assault. ... and I don't know how to serve it better with what we have. At least, those latest "new rules" have changed a lot, concerning to be mentioned in the kernel after some work ... Some don't want it at all and some others are frustrated ;) Seems there is a some gap. Cheers, Hermann
