On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:40:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > maintainers (and not assume lack of ack after 24 hours means acceptance), or > > > > Wrong, 72 to 96 hours. Sunday to Wednesday/Thursday. > > Not that this is really material (the argument is pretty much the same even had > you waited 3 days), but you are already wrong about the 'Sunday' part, because > you posted it to lkml on *Monday* 13:27 GMT: > > Message-ID: <20110509132738.GB16919@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Mon, 9 May 2011 09:27:52 -0400 Sigh. So you're only looking at the _second_ posting of them, not the first. Here's the message, minus the patch. | Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 19:24:07 +0100 | From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Stultz <johnstul@xxxxxxxxxx>, | "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> | Subject: i8253 clocksource consolidation | Message-ID: <20110508182407.GN27807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | | Ralf, John, Ingo, hpa, | | Below you'll find a work in progress patch. We have three i8253 PIT | clocksource implementations in the kernel tree, which are all very | similar. It seems pointless to have three copies of the code knocking | about, so this patch creates a common version in drivers/clocksource. | | This is a combined patch; I have it broken out into a series locally, | and follows on from other consolidation work which I've been doing with | ARM clocksources. | | This patch build-tests cleanly on ARM for NetWinder (one of the footbridge | platforms which uses an i8253.) | | So, do we think moving this to drivers/clocksource in this way is a | good idea? Any other comments? If feedback is positive, I'll rebase | them onto mainline, add the necessary cc's, and send them out properly. To which I had this _single_ response: | Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:07:35 +0100 | From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | Cc: John Stultz <johnstul@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> | | I like this patch; it's been long overdue and and while atm the patch | does not seem to apply it seems to be mostly right. | | Ralf And "it doesn't seem to apply" is precisely what I expected with the patch because of the conflicts with _other_ work which was in progress, and as I was asking in the original message about the _idea_, that is perfectly acceptable. > How hard can it be for you to look up the dates of the events before you > accuse others of not listening? I think I've just proven above that it was Sunday, not Monday. > Then you committed/amdended it on Tuesday 7:20 GMT: > > commit 3490f584b9ba5a0b6f63832fbc9c5ec72506697b > Author: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > AuthorDate: Sun May 8 18:55:19 2011 +0100 > Commit: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > CommitDate: Tue May 10 08:20:54 2011 +0100 Yes. Committed on _Sunday_ before I sent out the _first_ message which I've included above. Then tweaked and after Ralf's response, the series was then posted on _Monday_ in full. Then John responded with his ack, which caused the amendment on _Tuesday_ morning. And then _36_ further hours passed before the branch was merged into for-next on _Wednesday_ _evening_. So, Sunday evening to Wednesday evening. Three times 24 is 72 hours, which is what I corrected you to. > which is a mere 18 hours after it was mailed to lkml - and then you pushed it > out to linux-next some time after that, probably on the next day, Wednesday, > right? Are you _seriously_ trying to tell me that you have a problem with a commit dated 18 hours after being mailed out? If so, you're being rediculous here. Obviously I shouldn't have added John's ack, which was sent during Monday nighttime to the commit so quickly, but instead waited a week before doing so. Had I done that you wouldn't be complaining about "24 hours" or "18 hours". > It does not matter one little bit that you'd have been 'ready to rebase' once > more had some objection come in that short 2 days time window from Monday to > Wednesday, or any of the dates after that. Well, stop making such a big deal about "24 hours" or "18 hours" then, but start realizing that the commit date is actually a total _irrelevance_ to the time that it appeared in linux-next. Your continual waving of that point, and reduction in time period, just shows that you're trying to make this a _political_ issue, not a technical or social one, which again is born out by the amount of people _you_ added to this thread. > What i'm saying for the fourth time is that what you did here is not a proper > Git workflow: we only push bits out into permanent branches (and expose them to > conflicts, etc.) once they are final, and we only do that after making sure > that maintainers who maintain the trees of the affected files are fine with it > and make sure that there are no conflicts. Well, the fact that I messed up the function name was unfortunate and should've been caught locally, which I appologize for. I would have thought that much was obvious, but since you seem to believe that I _intentionally_ broke the x86 build. Anyway, the issue has been resolved _properly_ over the weekend, off-list, between Thomas and myself, in a way that results in no conflicts being exposed in any tree. -- 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
