On Tue, 6 May 2008, Daniel Walker wrote: > > As I've been saying, had you wanted the architectures included, you > should have said that a month ago. You had a month you review everything > and work with me .. Daniel, Don't give me this "wo is me" crap. After you posted the series I replied asking that you prove that it doesn't do any changes to the actual code. http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120761484315539&w=2 But you admit that you didn't do that yourself. This is also the time that we were very busy at working on ftrace and hoping it would make it into 2.6.26 (which it did not). Remember our goal is to get as much as possible into mainline Linux. And getting something from -rt (ftrace) into Linux was the higher priority for me than to go review your series after you tell me that you dropped archs and made changes to the code for the sake of bisectability. I thought my response was good enough to give you a clue that you needed to show that your work didn't make any changes. Making the tree bisectable is a "clean up" not a code design. And with all clean ups, they should not cause any changes to code behaviour. You've been doing kernel development long enough to know this. I'm not about to hold your hand and step you through the proper process of getting things accepted. If you don't make an effort to work with the maintainers instead of just shoving out a bunch of code and expect us to do the dirty work to make sure its ok, then you might as well give up. Take a lesson from Gregory Haskins. He came out with a lot of changes that were controversial at the time. Instead of shoving his code down our throats, he took our critisms seriously and worked hard to work with us. Now most of his code, even the controversial parts, has been incorporated. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
