* Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The thing that people are complaining about is exactly the > > reverse of this. It's *protecting* us from making mistakes, > > and doesn't actually add any new interfaces in itself. > > > > This is why I'm so annoyed with this stupid thread. It's > > been going on forever, and reverting that change WOULD BE > > OBJECTIVELY A BAD IDEA. > > See, thats where you have a problem with "reality". > > It seems you cannot accept the fact that some developers > disliked the process in which this change was pushed. [...] I don't think you have understood Linus's argument above. The "process" does not change the object technical merits of a patch. Ever. This patch is _good_, and objectively good. No amount of 'bad process' can make this patch bad. Now, hypothetically, if this was an objectively bad patch, then any "bad process" used to push it would add insult to injury and it could be reason enough to flame Tytso twice as hard. But it turns out the patch was right and good, so kudos to Tytso for cutting through the bike shed painting and politicks of fsdevel - which "process" would have deprived us of a good patch... Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
