Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:33:28AM CEST, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> With a comment that said "I can carry this merge forward, no further >> action is necessary on your part". That combined with my lack of deep >> internal knowledge of what it is that Stephen is doing made me go "Ok, >> he says don't do anything, so I won't change it." > >So quite frankly, Stephen does a really good job at merging and most >of his merges are very on point. He's been doing a lot of them as part >of linux-next, and has seen more conflicts than just about anybody >else. > >But I think to him it's mostly just an issue of "get the right end >result". I don't think he goes: "this merge conflict is a result of a >breakdown of the development process". > >Conversely, to me, one of the main reasons I want to do those merges >is exactly because I think conflicts are more about the development >process issues than about "just getting the right end result". Yes, >obviously I want to get the rigth end result too, but I very much >react to how/why the conflict happened in the first place. The end >result is _almost_ secondary, although 99% of the time the primary >issue doesn't really even raise its head. > >So I'm upset not because the conflict is hard to resolve (it isn't), >but because I feel this was really badly handled. > >Yes, the fact that Mellanox people sent two different patches to two >different maintainers that did the same thing in two different ways is >odd. Matan and Jiri are cc'd, and I think that whole thing just smells >really bad. It's not that odd. I'm not checking rdma tree. I work with net-next/net tree only when I do net patches. I wasn't aware of Matan's patches, different group. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
