On 09/08/2015 11:08 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Because the tree isn't buildable, let alone testable, without it.
>
> You're missing the ENTIRE POINT.
>
>> Well, I expected it to be handled without much effort on your part and
>> the existing network infrastructure to be the final version.
>
> There is indeed not much effort - I'd be throwing that commit away
> entirely in favor of the right one.
>
>> Is further explanation necessary, or have I answered your questions?
>
> Further explanation is necessary.
>
> Why did you rebase this thing?
As mentioned in my other email, Stephen is pointing at my github repo.
I had topic branches and a merge branch. There were various fixups that
happened during the devel window, and multiple times I rebased the merge
branch when topic branches had fixes. I made it very clear to people
when I set up the two repos that one was for official use, and one is a
WIP development repo that grants people early access but not a picture
of the final product. I was not aware that Stephen was pointing at my
github repo until this.
> And since you *did* rebase it, why did you still take the broken version?
As I mentioned in my other email, I could have replaced it and I didn't.
I didn't think it mattered, so I didn't.
> Why did you take a different commit than the networking people did in
> the first place?
I wasn't aware of the other one until Stephen notified me.
> Why did two different people at Mellanox write clearly different
> versions of the exact same thing? Don't tell me they didn't talk to
> each other - it's the exact same thing done at around the same time,
> and for the same reasons, just done with entirely different structure
> names and structure contents.
I can't speak to Mellanox's actions.
> Why did you make networking changes without talking to the networking people?
I had no intention of doing so. I had it in my tree, but I wouldn't
have pushed it without the networking people's approval. The
notification from Stephen rendered that approval moot so I didn't pursue
it further.
> The whole thing is one big mystery. And the problem is not how to
> merge this, but why this kind of crap happened, and why something as
> simple as "talk to the networking maintainer" didn't happen.
>
> Linus
>
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
