* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:26:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Had you asked us before committing it one day after it was posted, or had you > > *noticed* that those files are not in your tree and are already modified in > > linux-next, you'd have gotten a response like: > > Please also don't read anything into the commit date - it merely shows > when the last update happened. > > My workflow for patch series involves keeping them in git right from the > start. So actually they've been in git since _before_ they were posted. In > fact, the emails which I send out for any patch series are always generated > from the git commits. > > So, all my patches live in git _first_ before being mailed out. It is not a problem at all if you commit it to some non-permanent development branch of your own - we all do it. The commit date i pointed out was of the *final* commit, which got into linux-next. That showed a timestamp of just a day after the patch was sent out: presumably you rebased it to add John's Acked-by. The step where your workflow failed was to take upon yourself to maintain a file you do not normally maintain *and* messing up doing that: - you did not ask the maintainers who maintain it (which is fine as long as you do not mess up) - you did not realize that the file you modified is already modified in that tree, almost two months ago (it's not that hard to fetch linux-next once every week or so) - you did not even notify them that you committed something so when the bug happened in linux-next they had no idea what was going on Had you done any of those steps differently we'd have a better outcome. It's not a big problem all and we can resolve it, but you need to stop pretending that your workflow was just fine - it sucked here. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
