On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > I do have a patch in my inbox from Johannes from 4 days ago that fixes > this issue. > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=125697124819563&w=2 > > So what is the take away from this now? Do you wanna have Johannes step > over John and Dave and send such a patch directly to you? Hell yes. If it causes lockups for people, and the original commit is _known_ to be buggy, these kinds of things should be expedited. How much users time and effort do we want to waste? And there's a secondary issue too - how comfortable do we want people to be to test late-in-the-game -git trees? I should hope that they should be considered pretty stable. And ask yourself: would it have been better to have had this bug in my -git tree for just one day, or for five days? Of course, the optimal situation would have been that such a buggy commit wouldn't have been ever merged in the first place - at least not after -rc5. But notice how I'm not really complaining about that part: I'm a firm believer in the "bugs happen" reality, and while we should try to be careful, things like this _will_ slip through. So I'm not unhappy about the bug happening in the first place. It would have been better had it not, but hey, mistakes happen. We should just "Deal with it". And yes, "dealing with it" very much means by-passing maintainers if necessary. It can mean sending patches directly to me, but it _also_ means asking me to just revert a commit that turns out to be buggy and was merged late. And that's what I'm really arguing for here - I don't like how you and Johannes were arguing against "dealing with it". As it was, we clearly had users wasting their time on this. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
