On Wednesday 11 January 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > I am so astonished and sad about all this! I have the feeling of having > done exactly what Guennadi and Olof had asked me to do: What I get at > the end: people having a bad feeling about my work, not expected merge > conflicts which annoy everybody (only for a ridiculous amount of code), > my patches delayed and a comment saying that I cannot handle simple > dependency... > Nice result! I'm sorry for accusing you, you are right. You did exactly what was agreed on in the mail thread, I just reread the history. My impression is that Guennadi simply didn't know what he was doing when he sent you a patch based on a branch that was clearly not stable. > - Guennadi did not want to take SoC/board code in his tree > => I had to take those lines of code through at91/arm-soc breaking the > patch series and allowing the introduction of an out-of-sync merge This was probably the first mistake. It would have been trivial to handle all this if we had just stuck the same commit into both trees. > I have understood and approved all the reasons for the requested > changes, of course. But for which gain? > > Ok... well, it looks like a massive incomprehension which took us time > and ends up by wastefulness. Agreed. How about if you rebase the few other (non-ISI) patches that I had in arm-soc onto v3.2 and send me an updated pull request so I can send them on? There's no reason to hold them up. Arnd -- 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
