Hi David, On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:50:53 -0400 (EDT) David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I do have a question though, it is honestly really that much easier to > revert a whole days worth of changes (and therefore not get the code > tested at all) than to simply add the obvious one liner? Actually, for me it is. I have a script that does the "use yesterday's version" for me. To fix (even a one liner) means bringing up an editor, commiting, creating the patch and then recommiting it (an implementation detail) and recording that I need to keep (automatically) applying the patch in case the maintainer doesn't react quickly. In this particular case I have been telling people to include vmalloc.h (and other things like slab.h) over and over for years ... its a pain that x86 builds indirectly include so much stuff. > It seems to me to be absolutely the wrong tradeoff in these situations. I guess for the "current/fixes" tree during the merge window, you are right. For the "normal" trees, does a delay of (usually) one day really matter? I used to fix all this stuff and it added considerably to the length of my work day (which currently can be up to 16 hours long) :-( -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpDTjIRBFadk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
