* Russell King <rmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry, you're blaming the wrong person. I got the commit via > a pull, not via a patch. This is the most idiotic excuse I've ever read. Dammit, don't pull code you don't maintain and which you have not checked the background of, *especially* not if the originating discussion very clearly asked *you* to do it in another way. We were modifying that very code in this development cycle, in the scheduler tree - a fact highlighted by the conflict - which you could have seen yourself, had you even attempted to test-merge your tree to linux-next ... Let me quote PeterZ again: > > Russell, what's the status of these patches? I'd like to see > > them land in 3.4 if possible. I'm fine either way, I'll > > > > probably ask Ingo to pull your tree so that I can stack some > > other patches on top. Russell, read and reply to your mail in a timely and reliable fashion, that will avoid such mixups in the future. > If that's how you want to run your bit of the kernel, then > please be more responsive when you're sent patches and say how > you want to handle things. Don't ignore patches and then blame > people when conflicts happen. Stop blaming others for your own mistakes, one of the the scheduler maintainers replied to the patches a month ago, in an absolutely constructive fashion: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/232 You never replied to PeterZ that I can see. Again, fortunately it's not a big deal right now - both the commit and the conflict is trivial - but your current attitute towards applying patches and following discussions is rather sad and could cause bigger problems in the future. 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
