On Saturday 27 March 2010 03:44:34 pm David Miller wrote:
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:19:53 +0100
>
> > The commit itself may also have a problem but since it was _never_ in
> > linux-next tree it never saw a wider upstream testing.
>
> This is not true Bart.
Uh? I had verified my claims before writing previous mail..
The patch ("via82cxxx: workaround h/w bugs") appeared in Linus'
tree on 19th January and it was neither in next-20100101 nor in
next-20100119.. etc.
Why? I have no idea.. I've just noticed it today..
> My ide-2.6 and ide-next-2.6 trees are both included in
> linux-next And if they are not, that needs to be fixed
> because they very much are intended to be.
Not my area of responsibility..
> In any event, you wrote a patch which broke something and
> if you're not willing to work on a fix I have no choice
> but to simply revert.
Please..
You picked a patch out of larger patch series posted to a mailing
list (which was clearly marked as a one for my atang tree and not
for upstream), then you merged it adding your sign-off, did poor
job w.r.t. linux-next testing phase and now I'm the one to blame
for the breakage? :)
Well, your stance on kernel project management has been already
made crystal clear during rt28xx driver discussions so I'm not
really surprised here. I also don't remember ever signing support
contract with you or your employer so I will be putting your mails
into a separate folder (lets call it 'almost-spam') from now on..
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
