On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
<nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes, I fucked up and am actively fixing the regression.
.. and then you complained when somebody who relies on that driver
wants it *working*.
Really.
I don't know why you and Bart butt heads, but I don't _need_ to know.
If people find major bugs that keep their machines from working and
want them reverted, that's quite understandable.
So I'm going to apply that revert, and I will *not* pull a fix from
you until I hear that the fix actually got tested and has a
Tested-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx>
or similar from people who actually have the hardware.
Because bugs happen, and that's life.
But it's _not_ acceptable to complain when a used points out that the
change had no testing what-so-ever, and asks to have it reverted.
If you have a patch to fix it, reply to a revert request with "Here,
try this instead": That's a good approach, and allows the user of that
hardware to continue testing.
But if the change really had zero testing, and broke a driver that
Bart needs to work, then I certainly see why he'd want to have it
reverted.
Linus
--
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
