On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:19:54PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > David Brownell wrote: > >>> Yes, there were conflicts caused by several people working on the same >>> issue. But unfortunately, they don't boil down to only that. The recent >>> conflict was entirely caused by your authoritarian manner of dealing with >>> others' patches, > >> Or perhaps your tendancy to argue at the drop of a hat? > > Save on using idomatics on me, I can't understand all of that. :-) > >> (Which folk have noted to me off-line...) > > I don't care what and who noted to you offline. Let this folk speak that > to me in the face. I haven't said anything offline, but I will say it now. Your arguments with David and others seem very petty and are non-productive. This is one reason why I dropped all the musb patches and asked David to resubmit them. Because I trust his judgement here, and his experience. >> That's not often a productive path to collaboration. > > What else could I do to stop your unwanted changes? I still fail to see why they are unwanted. Do they say incorrect things? Are they incorrect patches? >> At best it gets tiring. > > You are getting me tired too. Everyone's tired, time for a nap. >> Notice that your responses can be pretty "authoritarian". > > Authoritarin or not, my responses are only reactions to your > authoritarian *actions* that you're trying to get me to accept forcefully, > just because of your position as the effective MUSB maintaiber (or I don't > know how else to name your current status). You don't have to accept anything. And yes, right now I am treating David as the effective MUSB maintainer as Felipe seems too busy with other work. >> And that certain feedback you have refused to address, >> like patch comments obfuscating the actual changes. > > If you mean endpoint_disable() fix, I've addressed them (and explained > why the original description turned out to be deficient) but I certainly > isn't going to rewrite the whole patch description more to your likes. > >> Part of the role of a patch wrangler (or integrator) is >> sometimes to fix patches from other folk. It's a normal > > It was the first time in my whole Linux "career" that I saw such > intrusive, uncalled for (and somethimes plain wrong) changes done by any > maintainer, let alone by any voilunteering "patch wrangler". I take it your career has been short then :) This happens all the time. I edit the changelog for almost _every_ patch that I accept in order to fix up things and make it clearer. Only with a few people this isn't necessary as they have the experience to know how to write good changelog messages. I also end up doing wrong changes, and having others do "wrong" things to my code as well. It's just life and we learn to deal with it as it makes Linux better in the end. No one is forcing you to send these patches, and I greatly appreciate the work. But if you continue to be antagonistic about the whole process, then that's really not going to get you anywhere except added to some email kill files :( So, naps for everyone! thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
