Greg KH 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
Even if so, I was forced into that mode.
one reason why I dropped all the musb patches and asked David to resubmit them. Because I trust his judgement here, and his experience.
Unfortunately, I can't say I trust his judgement.
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?
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are just changes for worse. I just couldn't accept my elaborate problem description getting replaced by "do this and do that" kind of description because it was allegedly declared "obfuscating the actual changes", and even after I've clarified it.
Are they incorrect patches?
Thank goodness, no. The patches themselves didn't get changed -- other than comments.
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 I'm not. What are you complaining about then?
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 :)
Long enough but I just had no close encounters with David. :-)
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 kind of know it as I have tens of patches merged to this moment. It's not hundreds, but it's many enough (I also co-maintain IDE -- though unofficially, for the fear of not having enough time to spare on this). And I try to be as much elaborate as I can but the time isn't always on my side.
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 :(
Oh, that would be truly well deserved. Probably linux-usb needs no sane MUSB patches anymore. :-D
thanks,
greg k-h
WBR, Sergei -- 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
